Informing the European Commission on Apple's monopoly abuse

[pasquale]

This is simply a developer who don't want to pay App Store fee and blaming Apple instead using false accusations. If your app is so important and safe to its users, why don't you just pay the fee and move on? So everybody is happy. Or, at least, teach your users how to let GateKeeper allows your app. It's not that difficult actually. But, please… don't let them set the GateKeeper off.

The reason why I don't use the App Store is because I develop "portable apps" which save data to the app bundle. My customers are allowed to copy the app to a USB flashdrive and use it directly from there, if they want to. When they go to their office, all they have to do is insert the flashdrive into the office Mac and run the app. So moving your app from a Mac to another is as easy as copying and pasting a single app bundle.

Unfortunately, Apple has imposed the sand-boxing procedure for their App Store that prevents your apps from being run from a flashdrive. Is this imposition due to security or commercial reasons? Well, you may chew on it and come to your own conclusions.

[pasquale]

I'm with Apple in this case. GateKeeper is a good thing for common non-technical users so they are more protected from potentially bad sofwares (malware, ransomware, etc). Making GateKeeper on by default is the whole point of its existence.

I couldn't disagree more. If Apple cares so much about their users' security, why don't they just provide their operating system with good antivirus software which scans all of the apps that are not downloaded from the App Store before installing them? The truth is, they want to discourage customers from purchasing apps from independent developers, simply because Apple wants to eat all of the pie.

[bee]

The reason why I don't use the App Store is because I develop "portable apps" which save data to the app bundle. My customers are allowed to copy the app to a USB flashdrive and use it directly from there, if they want to.

I have no problem running an app from a USB drive on a Mac. Occasionally I used some old Mac apps that I kept on a USB drive. They're all run just fine directly from the USB drive, with GateKeeper on. It's not about the USB drive, it's about the permission of the app.

When they go to their office, all they have to do is insert the flashdrive into the office Mac and run the app. So moving your app from a Mac to another is as easy as copying and pasting a single app bundle.

I don't think saving user data into the app bundle is a good practice in Apple platform –or Unix platform in general, for that matter– even before GateKeeper existed. You're using a wrong approach. Why don't you save the user data separately, but still in the same USB drive?

Unfortunately, Apple has imposed the sand-boxing procedure for their App Store that prevents your apps from being run from a flashdrive. Is this imposition due to security or commercial reasons? Well, you may chew on it and come to your own conclusions.

Sand-boxing is one of common methods and practices in security world. In fact, it's more and more used in modern operating systems. Android –to some extent– also using similar method albeit a bit more "flexible". It's clearly a security feature and has nothing to do with commercial intention you're accusing to Apple. There's a reason why Apple's platform are very much well known as secured and trusted ecosystem.

I couldn't disagree more. If Apple cares so much about their users' security, why don't they just provide their operating system with good antivirus software which scans all of the apps that are not downloaded from the App Store before installing them?

GateKeeper, as the name implies, is guarding the entry so bad softwares got cutted before they reach user space. So, it's best if it's done by the system itself, the MacOS. Antivirus softwares are removing bad sofwares that are already inside the system. It can be done by legal and authorized apps, either first party or third party.

The truth is, they want to discourage customers from purchasing apps from independent developers, simply because Apple wants to eat all of the pie.

Wrong. The truth is, indie developers are blooming since the App Store existed. I have heard so many single developers all around the world become successful in the App Store. It's something we can only imagined before the App Store (or Play Store) era. A single developer only need to pay $99 a year and his/her app suddenly reach million of users all around the globe without so much effort. That's why it's called "app-economy".

You keep complaining about a small problem that can be easily solved by simply signing your app. It's a simple and convenience solution.

[taazz]

The reason why I don't use the App Store is because I develop "portable apps" which save data to the app bundle. My customers are allowed to copy the app to a USB flashdrive and use it directly from there, if they want to.

I have no problem running an app from a USB drive on a Mac. Occasionally I used some old Mac apps that I kept on a USB drive. They're all run just fine directly from the USB drive, with GateKeeper on. It's not about the USB drive, it's about the permission of the app.

When they go to their office, all they have to do is insert the flashdrive into the office Mac and run the app. So moving your app from a Mac to another is as easy as copying and pasting a single app bundle.

I don't think saving user data into the app bundle is a good practice in Apple platform –or Unix platform in general, for that matter– even before GateKeeper existed. You're using a wrong approach. Why don't you save the user data separately, but still in the same USB drive?

Unfortunately, Apple has imposed the sand-boxing procedure for their App Store that prevents your apps from being run from a flashdrive. Is this imposition due to security or commercial reasons? Well, you may chew on it and come to your own conclusions.

Sand-boxing is one of common methods and practices in security world. In fact, it's more and more used in modern operating systems. Android –to some extent– also using similar method albeit a bit more "flexible". It's clearly a security feature and has nothing to do with commercial intention you're accusing to Apple. There's a reason why Apple's platform are very much well known as secured and trusted ecosystem.

I couldn't disagree more. If Apple cares so much about their users' security, why don't they just provide their operating system with good antivirus software which scans all of the apps that are not downloaded from the App Store before installing them?

GateKeeper, as the name implies, is guarding the entry so bad softwares got cutted before they reach user space. So, it's best if it's done by the system itself, the MacOS. Antivirus softwares are removing bad sofwares that are already inside the system. It can be done by legal and authorized apps, either first party or third party.

True up to a point, the problem is that apple does not allow 3rd parties to become trusted member that cansign applications just like the rest of the world that only establishes a monopoly in all the meaning of the term. I'm not going to touch special cases like companies supplying their own software to their own eployees with out the apples knowledge or consent.

The truth is, they want to discourage customers from purchasing apps from independent developers, simply because Apple wants to eat all of the pie.

Wrong. The truth is, indie developers are blooming since the App Store existed. I have heard so many single developers all around the world become successful in the App Store. It's something we can only imagined before the App Store (or Play Store) era. A single developer only need to pay $99 a year and his/her app suddenly reach million of users all around the globe without so much effort. That's why it's called "app-economy".

You keep complaining about a small problem that can be easily solved by simply signing your app. It's a simple and convenience solution.

And that is BS! As long as the app store is small a couple of thousand developers then things are blooming for everybody the moment hte app store gets fladded with a couple of million developers developing the same applications single developers have the same chance of earning a leaving in there as in any internet place.

but apple is a monopoly and uses her place on the market to make sure it stays a monopoly. I wouldn't jump the fence to get in there let alone pay..

[pasquale]

The reason why I don't use the App Store is because I develop "portable apps" which save data to the app bundle. My customers are allowed to copy the app to a USB flashdrive and use it directly from there, if they want to.

I have no problem running an app from a USB drive on a Mac. Occasionally I used some old Mac apps that I kept on a USB drive. They're all run just fine directly from the USB drive, with GateKeeper on. It's not about the USB drive, it's about the permission of the app.

I was referring to apps downloaded from the App Store. As far as I know, they cannot run on a flashdrive.

When they go to their office, all they have to do is insert the flashdrive into the office Mac and run the app. So moving your app from a Mac to another is as easy as copying and pasting a single app bundle.
I don't think saving user data into the app bundle is a good practice in Apple platform –or Unix platform in general, for that matter– even before GateKeeper existed. You're using a wrong approach. Why don't you save the user data separately, but still in the same USB drive?

Why is it bad practice? What difference does it make? To me, the app budle is as good a place as any. Besides, it allows me to make my app easily transportable, since all you have to do is copy a single folder containing the app and the data.

Unfortunately, Apple has imposed the sand-boxing procedure for their App Store that prevents your apps from being run from a flashdrive. Is this imposition due to security or commercial reasons? Well, you may chew on it and come to your own conclusions.
Sand-boxing is one of common methods and practices in security world. In fact, it's more and more used in modern operating systems. Android –to some extent– also using similar method albeit a bit more "flexible". It's clearly a security feature and has nothing to do with commercial intention you're accusing to Apple. There's a reason why Apple's platform are very much well known as secured and trusted ecosystem.

Sand-boxing prevents your app from being portable. That's the whole point.

I couldn't disagree more. If Apple cares so much about their users' security, why don't they just provide their operating system with good antivirus software which scans all of the apps that are not downloaded from the App Store before installing them?
GateKeeper, as the name implies, is guarding the entry so bad softwares got cutted before they reach user space. So, it's best if it's done by the system itself, the MacOS. Antivirus softwares are removing bad sofwares that are already inside the system. It can be done by legal and authorized apps, either first party or third party.

With GateKeeper Apple is playing dirty because the message box you get when you double-click on an unsigned app does not show the "Run" button and tells the user absolutely nothing about what to do if he or she wants to run it anyway. It would be much fairer to inform the user about the potential risks and then allow him or her to click on a "Run" button.

The truth is, they want to discourage customers from purchasing apps from independent developers, simply because Apple wants to eat all of the pie.
Wrong. The truth is, indie developers are blooming since the App Store existed. I have heard so many single developers all around the world become successful in the App Store. It's something we can only imagined before the App Store (or Play Store) era. A single developer only need to pay $99 a year and his/her app suddenly reach million of users all around the globe without so much effort. That's why it's called "app-economy".

The App Store has now become so big that the user may just get lost. Selling your apps on your private Web site could be a much better option.

You keep complaining about a small problem that can be easily solved by simply signing your app. It's a simple and convenience solution.

That's what you say.

[bee]

True up to a point, the problem is that apple does not allow 3rd parties to become trusted member that cansign applications just like the rest of the world that only establishes a monopoly in all the meaning of the term.

I'm sorry because I don't understand your statement above. Apple doesn't allow 3rd parties to become trusted member? While in fact there are so many third parties and indie devs put their apps into the App Store without problems. Which part of the system that makes it a monopoly?

And that is BS! As long as the app store is small a couple of thousand developers then things are blooming for everybody the moment hte app store gets fladded with a couple of million developers developing the same applications single developers have the same chance of earning a leaving in there as in any internet place.

If Apple is so bad as you suggest, then why are there millions of developers flooded the platform? It's like saying people hesitate to go to Apple (retail) store because everybody is there already, and then you conclude that Apple is doing monopoly.

but apple is a monopoly and uses her place on the market to make sure it stays a monopoly. I wouldn't jump the fence to get in there let alone pay..

Do whatever you want… nobody misses you anyway. As there are many others who jump the fence and join Apple ecosystem gladly.

I was referring to apps downloaded from the App Store. As far as I know, they cannot run on a flashdrive.

Just tried it out. I downloaded an app from App Store, copy the app into a flashdrive, delete the app from the Mac, and run the app directly from the flashdrive, and viola… it runs just fine.

Sand-boxing prevents your app from being portable. That's the whole point.

As I said, if your app get signed, it can be run from anywhere. Even devs who sell their apps out of the App Store still sign their apps.

Why is it bad practice? What difference does it make? To me, the app budle is as good a place as any. Besides, it allows me to make my app easily transportable, since all you have to do is copy a single folder containing the app and the data.

It's a UNIX-based OS we're talking about, not Windows. In unix, there are system space and user space. App bundle is like an executable that its content should not be changed dynamically. You should understand this basic knowledge of system your app run upon.

With GateKeeper Apple is playing dirty because the message box you get when you double-click on an unsigned app does not show the "Run" button and tells the user absolutely nothing about what to do if he or she wants to run it anyway. It would be much fairer to inform the user about the potential risks and then allow him or her to click on a "Run" button.

Again, what's the point of a GateKeeper if it's so easy to passed by? Apple prevents non-technical users to accidentically run bad softwares. If they do want to by pass the security, they must know what to do. It's a very simple security logic.

The App Store has now become so big that the user may just get lost. Selling your apps on your private Web site could be a much better option.

That's what you say. While the fact is Apple paying more money to developers every year.

[pasquale]

I was referring to apps downloaded from the App Store. As far as I know, they cannot run on a flashdrive.

Just tried it out. I downloaded an app from App Store, copy the app into a flashdrive, delete the app from the Mac, and run the app directly from the flashdrive, and viola… it runs just fine.

You should try taking your flashdrive to another Mac and run the app from there. If it is a paid app, you are requested to pay one license per Mac. On the contrary, I want to allow my customers to pay for the app once and then they must be allowed to run it on all of their Macs. You cannot do that if you sell your apps on the App Store because Apple wants to get 30% of the price out of each installation.

Sand-boxing prevents your app from being portable. That's the whole point.

As I said, if your app get signed, it can be run from anywhere. Even devs who sell their apps out of the App Store still sign their apps.

This is an interesting point. Could you please show me how you can code sign your apps (out of the App Store) in such a way as to avoid the initial message box that prevents the user from installing them?

[taazz]

True up to a point, the problem is that apple does not allow 3rd parties to become trusted member that cansign applications just like the rest of the world that only establishes a monopoly in all the meaning of the term.

I'm sorry because I don't understand your statement above. Apple doesn't allow 3rd parties to become trusted member? While in fact there are so many third parties and indie devs put their apps into the App Store without problems. Which part of the system that makes it a monopoly?

True not being a native English speaker some times I do not make sense. So answer me this can I use verysign to sign my applications for macos instead of apple?

And that is BS! As long as the app store is small a couple of thousand developers then things are blooming for everybody the moment hte app store gets fladded with a couple of million developers developing the same applications single developers have the same chance of earning a leaving in there as in any internet place.

If Apple is so bad as you suggest, then why are there millions of developers flooded the platform? It's like saying people hesitate to go to Apple (retail) store because everybody is there already, and then you conclude that Apple is doing monopoly.

Oh the millions of developers argument, yeah I haven't found any compelling reason to use apple my self what makes you think I can find any reason why some one else uses their products? And no I never said anything about hesitation or monopoly stemming from hesitation.

but apple is a monopoly and uses her place on the market to make sure it stays a monopoly. I wouldn't jump the fence to get in there let alone pay..

Do whatever you want… nobody misses you anyway. As there are many others who jump the fence and join Apple ecosystem gladly.

Good I would hate to think there where people behind apple lines that missed me, then I would have to jailbreak them.

[bee]

You should try taking your flashdrive to another Mac and run the app from there. If it is a paid app, you are requested to pay one license per Mac. On the contrary, I want to allow my customers to pay for the app once and then they must be allowed to run it on all of their Macs.

If you log into the Mac using different ID from the one used to download the app, then of course it will ask for a license because you're not known to have purchased the app. It's obvious. But if you log into the Mac using the exact same ID, you may use all the apps you've purchased with the ID on every Mac you have.

This is an interesting point. Could you please show me how you can code sign your apps (out of the App Store) in such a way as to avoid the initial message box that prevents the user from installing them?

Read this: Distributing Apps Outside the Mac App Store

True not being a native English speaker some times I do not make sense. So answer me this can I use verysign to sign my applications for macos instead of apple?

What? If I'm Apple, why wouid I let someone else to sign security certificate for my system? It's ridiculous.

Oh the millions of developers argument, yeah I haven't found any compelling reason to use apple myself what makes you think I can find any reason why some one else uses their products?

Oh, so you don't use Apple products yourself. I see. But you expect everyone to see Apple like the way you see it. Everyone has their own opinion, perspective, need, etc that might be very different from yours, you know. If you think Apple products aren't for you, for whatever reasons, good for you. I respect that. But that doesn't mean there's noone else that need or even love Apple products. In fact, there are millions of them.

Good I would hate to think there where people behind apple lines that missed me, then I would have to jailbreak them.

You don't use nor need Apple products. And Apple with all of the users also don't seem to need your apps too. So, why bother with this discusssion at all? Why don't you just use whatever system you prefer and make some peace with it?

[taazz]

True not being a native English speaker some times I do not make sense. So answer me this can I use verysign to sign my applications for macos instead of apple?

What? If I'm Apple, why wouid I let someone else to sign security certificate for my system? It's ridiculous.

And that is what is known as a monopoly.

Oh the millions of developers argument, yeah I haven't found any compelling reason to use apple myself what makes you think I can find any reason why some one else uses their products?

Oh, so you don't use Apple products yourself. I see. But you expect everyone to see Apple like the way you see it. Everyone has their own opinion, perspective, need, etc that might be very different from yours, you know. If you think Apple products aren't for you, for whatever reasons, good for you. I respect that. But that doesn't mean there's noone else that need or even love Apple products. In fact, there are millions of them.

fair enough.

Good I would hate to think there where people behind apple lines that missed me, then I would have to jailbreak them.

You don't use nor need Apple products. And Apple with all of the users also don't seem to need your apps too. So, why bother with this discusssion at all? Why don't you just use whatever system you prefer and make some peace with it?

I do not I really don't care about apple but I do care about monopolies and how to avoid them like apple.

[pasquale]

This is an interesting point. Could you please show me how you can code sign your apps (out of the App Store) in such a way as to avoid the initial message box that prevents the user from installing them?

Read this: Distributing Apps Outside the Mac App Store

Is the creation of an Apple ID free or is it charged by Apple? In other words, if you just want to code sign your app and distribute it outside the App Store, can you do it at no cost?

[bee]

And that is what is known as a monopoly.

Code signing is common practice in security. Even open source world encourage this technique although not really popular. And nope, it's not a monopoly. If it's really a monopoly, Apple won't be allowed to do business in western countries which we all know forbid monopoly practice. It's a business model, a closed walled garden business model. It might not suit your need, but it's legal in this capitalism world.

I do not I really don't care about apple but I do care about monopolies and how to avoid them like apple.

Good for you. Avoid Apple as you like. I hope you enjoy your preferred system. And let Apple users enjoy their preferred system as well. Everybody wins.

Is the creation of an Apple ID free or is it charged by Apple? In other words, if you just want to code sign your app and distribute it outside the App Store, can you do it at no cost?

AFAIK, no it's not free. Well, you may have developer ID for free and you can use it to self-signed your app, but it doesn't make your developer ID becomes known and trusted by GateKeeper.

If you don't want to pay for Apple code signing, why don't you just educate your users how to by pass GateKeeper when using your app? It's just 2 clicks away. How hard can it be? Even for common non-technical users.

[Thaddy]

This is an interesting point. Could you please show me how you can code sign your apps (out of the App Store) in such a way as to avoid the initial message box that prevents the user from installing them?

Read this: Distributing Apps Outside the Mac App Store

Is the creation of an Apple ID free or is it charged by Apple? In other words, if you just want to code sign your app and distribute it outside the App Store, can you do it at no cost?

It is not free, but cheap. And the costs go in verifying who you are, what your program(s) do, etc. It is not a moneymaker. Distributing outside the appstore is only interesting for a closed - private- customer  application (say, a single company).
Otherwise, don't do it. You will loose your credentials as a developer AND your key if an application is public and not scrutinised by the store.
But self-signing a closed application is OK, but a hell of an effort to create a proper install for: every single user has to accept a non-trusted app.....The system guys will thank you for it (not!).

Developing for Apple products takes a little more effort.
Distributing for Apple products even more.
That's a GOOD thing!

[bee]

Developing for Apple products takes a little more effort.
Distributing for Apple products even more.

I disagree. I found Xcode, Swift, and Apple's SDKs and frameworks are great and very helpful. It's not really take more effort. It's like in other platforms, in some cases it's even more effortless. Every platform has its own way managing its system and users, with all its restrictions and flaws. There's no such a perfect platform for everybody. However, we as developers should respect the policy of each platform. So we should either follow it or leave it.

Distributing app on any platforms is much easier these days. App store model is available in almost all mainstream platforms nowadays. It's not like in the 90's or 2000's when we have to do it all by ourselves. Well, Apple policy requires us to pay anually. But if we really want to enter Apple's market, we should play by its rule. As long as the rules are legal, it's not relevant whether we like it or not.

That's a GOOD thing!

I would rather say it's NECESSARY thing. Payment wall is an economy barrier to developers and also a commitment bound between Apple and its developers. By paying, most developers will be more responsible to give the best app they could make, and then maintain the app along the way. Of course there always will be unresponsible developers anyway, no matter what, but they'll be naturally selected so only the best remain on the top list. And that's all the users need, the best devs with best apps for their needs. Everybody's happy!

[engkin]

I do not I really don't care about apple but I do care about monopolies and how to avoid them like apple.

Good for you. Avoid Apple as you like. I hope you enjoy your preferred system. And let Apple users enjoy their preferred system as well. Everybody wins.

"Excitable boy"

"Excitable boy"

A song called "Excitable Boy" by Zevon is playing in the background, like an ear worm, is recommended for everyone else while reading this post. During the previous decade I witnessed a lot of PR work done for dictators literally massacring their people. Business is business, you know.

I would like to congratulate you for your PR work, here, for Apple. Awesome! I really enjoyed reading it. I just happened to have a little issue: You mentioned western countries and laws, but Apple products are manufactured in China - A place where people use strange glyphs like 秩 - am I right? I am not sure if the western term is "cheap labor" or "slave labor", or maybe a more positive term?. Do you think Apple, and similar giants, care about Chinese workers, for instance? What about you, do you care about little Suzie, or is it normalized? If there is no law against it, then it must be OK. Sorry to bother you, keep enjoying you gadgets.

"He is just an excitable boy"