> The problem is it's chicken and egg. To get users you need apps, to get app developers you need users.
I didn't say it would be easy. :-) It is a huge can of worms to declare the current smartphone + app store design as a public utility to be preserved for 50 years, when this industry is barely 12 years old at this point.
> To overcome that you don't just need something which is as good as the status quo, you need something so much better that people will switch to it despite the apps conundrum.
Yes. I don't think it will come from "the smartphone" market which has already been won. It will come by some disruptor that eats into adjacencies: AR, VR, wearables, etc. Apple actually has a good chance to retain their position because everyone has underestimated how important Apple Watch could become, plus their investments in AR.
> Who do you propose has the resources to unseat the incumbents at this point?
Alibaba group, Facebook, Valve, Tencent, Huawei, Amazon, and Microsoft.
> That's a big part of the problem -- the users lack visibility into the inner workings. How many iPhone customers even realize that competing stores are prohibited, or that Apple bans things they may want?
I think most users are broadly aware that Apple control things and take a cut. Most people have to deal with Kindle or Audible and having to buy that content via a different app or the browser. IMO the current legal argument is broadly not about banned apps, it's about profit margins.
> The developers can't even show the users how much they're paying, or offer discounts for purchases made through other channels, because Apple prohibits it.
So does every other platform provider though. Publishers and retailers can't discount Nintendo switch games unless Nintendo approves it. This goes back 40 years to Atari.
> And the lack of user awareness is another impediment to establishing a new competing platform.
I think the bigger issue is if users actually prefer the current curated arrangement.
> It is a huge can of worms to declare the current smartphone + app store design as a public utility to be preserved for 50 years, when this industry is barely 12 years old at this point.
Who is making it a public utility? Just prohibit anyone from restricting users from using alternative app stores or sideloading their own apps. It's the opposite of making it a utility -- it's ensuring that competition exists.
> I don't think it will come from "the smartphone" market which has already been won. It will come by some disruptor that eats into adjacencies: AR, VR, wearables, etc.
You also have the problem that the successor need not be any better. If one of those things replaces the smartphone, but the new incumbent still restricts users in what apps they can install, unseating the old incumbents hasn't actually solved the problem.
> Alibaba group, Facebook, Valve, Tencent, Huawei, Amazon, and Microsoft.
Microsoft and Amazon already tried and failed, and none of those others are as big or even making an attempt.
> I think most users are broadly aware that Apple control things and take a cut.
They're vaguely aware that it happens, but not of what that means to them. The opaque and arbitrary criteria they use for rejections, or the implications for app price and quality of transferring wealth from small developers to the world's largest corporation. So it feels like somebody else's problem. And when Apple and Google both do it, something they have no meaningful choice in regardless.
> So does every other platform provider though. Publishers and retailers can't discount Nintendo switch games unless Nintendo approves it. This goes back 40 years to Atari.
And they should prohibit the lot of it. It was never different, it had just never been big enough to matter this much, because before it was only games and not everything.
> I think the bigger issue is if users actually prefer the current curated arrangement.
Which we could find out if the vertical integration was removed and the users could choose a curated store or not, independent of which phone they buy.
I didn't say it would be easy. :-) It is a huge can of worms to declare the current smartphone + app store design as a public utility to be preserved for 50 years, when this industry is barely 12 years old at this point.
> To overcome that you don't just need something which is as good as the status quo, you need something so much better that people will switch to it despite the apps conundrum.
Yes. I don't think it will come from "the smartphone" market which has already been won. It will come by some disruptor that eats into adjacencies: AR, VR, wearables, etc. Apple actually has a good chance to retain their position because everyone has underestimated how important Apple Watch could become, plus their investments in AR.
> Who do you propose has the resources to unseat the incumbents at this point?
Alibaba group, Facebook, Valve, Tencent, Huawei, Amazon, and Microsoft.
> That's a big part of the problem -- the users lack visibility into the inner workings. How many iPhone customers even realize that competing stores are prohibited, or that Apple bans things they may want?
I think most users are broadly aware that Apple control things and take a cut. Most people have to deal with Kindle or Audible and having to buy that content via a different app or the browser. IMO the current legal argument is broadly not about banned apps, it's about profit margins.
> The developers can't even show the users how much they're paying, or offer discounts for purchases made through other channels, because Apple prohibits it.
So does every other platform provider though. Publishers and retailers can't discount Nintendo switch games unless Nintendo approves it. This goes back 40 years to Atari.
> And the lack of user awareness is another impediment to establishing a new competing platform.
I think the bigger issue is if users actually prefer the current curated arrangement.