Apple Under Fire for Closed Ecosystem

Apple

Apple Computer has been around since 1976 and was of course founded by Steve Jobs and Steve Wozniak.

In the late 90's Apple's market share was around 3.3% and there was no significant change through the millennium. In 2010-2020 Apple increased the desktop market share to 8.2%, and in 2021 they held 8% and almost 10% in 2022.

As of Q3 2023, Apple holds 10% of the worldwide personal computer market.

With the introduction of the iPhone in 2007, Apple have captured approximately 18% of the mobile market, but it hasn't been all growth, from our chart we can see that the iPhone market share peaked in 2011/2012 with the iPhone 4 and 5, but competition from an explosion of android handsets took its toll until 2021 when apple clawed back almost 10% of the market through to 2024.

Closed Ecosystem

Apple has come under much criticism for its 'closed' ecosystem, which of course is targeted at its AppStore, which for iPhone is the only method of installing applications. Mac users do not have this limitation and can install software from any supplier.

The iPhone AppStore (which also includes iPad) will only list applications that have been submitted to Apple for 'approval' and meet Apple's strict criteria for approval. Here's a summary of that criteria:

Safety and Content

• Apps must be family-friendly and comply with local laws
• No objectionable content or content that may cause physical harm
• Strict requirements for apps in the "Kids" category

Performance and Functionality

• Apps should be thoroughly tested, free of bugs, and perform well
• Must provide a seamless user experience across different devices and screen sizes
• Should offer genuine utility and lasting value to users

Design and User Interface

• Adherence to Apple's Human Interface Guidelines
• Intuitive and engaging user experiences
• Unique and original app concepts are preferred

Technical Requirements

• Compatibility with the latest iOS versions and devices
• Use of Apple's official payment system for in-app purchases
• No use of undocumented APIs

Legal and Privacy

• Respect for intellectual property rights
• Protection of user privacy and proper disclosure of data usage

Business and Monetisation

• Appropriate use of in-app purchases
• No duplicate or excessively similar apps

Submission Process

• Proper categorisation and keyword selection
• Complete and accurate app information, including screenshots and descriptions

Now this is only a summary, but none of that sounds particularly arduous, and seems to be designed to ensure apps are reliable and suitable for peoples devices, and to prevent the sort of malicious software that is rife in the Google Playstore. Regardless, this and the AppStore is at the heart of the debate on Apple's closed ecosystem.

Apple's View

Apple maintain that their customers require a safe ecosystem, where they and their children can be assured of app privacy and stability, knowing that a third party (Apple) has reviewed the code and certified that the App is safe for use.

Anyone who's been a long time user of the AppStore can affirm this, and in most cases the Apps for download are indeed reliable and functional, and in the history of the AppStore, there have only been one major incident where malicious code evaded Apple's review process and made it into the store, and that was the XcodeGhost incident from 2015, which resulted in Apple retrospectively pulling a significant number of Apps from the store. It's worth pointing out here that this malware was introduced by genuine developers using an infected version of xcode, the IDE for developing apple apps.

Despite this incident, which was mitigated by Apple remotely, Apple mobile and tablet users have enjoyed many years of protection, and I personally do not want this to change. I like the idea of Apple gatekeeping the store from bad apps.

In 2023 alone, Apple rejected over 1.7 million submissions for failing to meet the standards, which is 1.7 million less to fight through to find the one good App that does what you need.

The Apple AppStore

Developers pay nothing to be listed in the AppStore, but they are required to have a developer account, which is £70/year. For any purchase in the first year, Apple will take 30% of the gross, falling to 15% after the first year. This split year model is designed to encourage 'subscriptions' over one-off purchases, so thank you for that. (As a comparison, Google charge $25 for an PlayStore account, and take 30% in the first year, 15% after that)

Saturation

One criticism that is often leveraged at Apple is the lack of any way to un-buy an App, even the free ones. So many people will have to fight through several apps to find the one that actually works, and whilst the other apps can be removed from the device, there's no way to remove that 'purchase' from the store. It has always been this way, and anyone who's been in the ecosystem for any time will know that there are literally thousands of 'purchases' that are live and will never be used again.

The store itself only makes it possible to see the top 100 apps in any category, so if you're looking for business apps, you get a limited list of 200 'top' apps in paid and free. There isn't a category system like you'd find in other AppStores.

"Productivity" for example, gives me a list of the top 200 free, or top 200 paid apps only, and there's no way to get more unless you know the name of the app and can then search for that name. This means that 99% of the apps in the AppStore are not shown in categories.

In-App Purchases

Another damaging component that came to the AppStore in 2009, and was quickly integrated into almost all apps. This feature allows apps to provide little or no functionality as claimed without the user paying another price. That is, the app is shown as free in the AppStore, but once downloaded (that can never be undone), it quickly becomes apparent that the app is useless without paying for it. Apple have been slow to address this, but really need to and ensure apps provide a fair degree of functionality as 'free' if in-app purchases are enabled.

US Department of Justice

The US DOJ is requiring Apple to allow other competing AppStores to be available on its devices. Apple quite rightly argue that this will break the ecosystem and allow the same sort of malware that is prevalent on other systems into the ecosystem, and I have to agree.

Apple's response is that, and I summarise here, allowing un-regulated AppStores would be devastating for its customers, and would effectively break the current AppleCare support system, that supports all apple users free of charge for a period regardless of the issue. Apple quite rightly do not want to be supporting damage and issues caused by apps that are installed outside of it's review processes, and that also seems fair. If Apple are forced into this, I strongly suspect Apple will wash their hands of users with issues, who have at one time installed a competing AppStore, regardless of whether that is the source of the issues.

Another obvious driver for this 'reform' is that Apple have resisted and even frustrated the efforts of law enforcement to penetrate customers phones without their permission, and as you can imagine, having an open ecosystem would allow various authorities to install the software of their choosing and break through Apple's security and protections. Anyone who's used Cydia knows that once you're resident on the device, you can dig around anywhere you want and access anything you wish.

For anyone technical, reading the case against Apple seems laughable in some places, where lawmakers have simply misunderstood the very concepts they are proposing, and that's a problem. Much in the same way the UK's "Online Safety Bill" was clearly written by people who have no idea how the internet works, and will most likely become law, because it's debated by people who have no idea how the internet works.

The European Union

In the EU, the Digital Markets Act (DMA) now mandates that iPhone users in the EU must have access to third party AppStores like AltStore, Setapp Mobile, Epic Games, Aptoide and Mobivention, circumventing Apple's strict review processes.

Whilst there is optimism in the developer community, it's far to early to know if users will break away from the safety and security of the Apple ecosystem and embrace these alternatives.

Hardware

Another criticism that's leveraged at Apple, is right-to-repair, which opposes Apple's stance on third party hardware repair.

Right to Repair has been a long term campaign against Apple, who do not supply parts to anyone except authorised repairers, leaving everyone else to use cheap chinese copies and clones. Its clear that a genuine iPhone screen is far superior to the chinese copies, but when third party repairers cannot access the genuine parts, customers have no other option. The internet is alight with reports of clone batteries causing iPhones to swell and catch fire, which highlights the risks of third party repair without Apple parts support. It's important to say that battery fires are not localised to Apple, but they are localised to cheap reproduction parts.

Apple's view, is that it has an approval process for third party repair to become 'authorised' after which access to parts will be available, but, the criteria are unreasonably high for small third party repairers, and even when authorisation has been attained, many parts are simply not available. Apple argue that at a certain point its more economic to replace the unit rather than attempt an unsafe repair, and this is potentially true from a customer service point of view. Many repairs by third party repairers are not safe, and result in returns or persistent issues.

On the other side, third party repair argue that if Apple were more forthcoming with parts and documentation, they would be in a better position to effect safe repairs, and this is also true providing the party has the prerequisite skills.

There is no doubt that if Apple simply released all the documentation and parts to anyone who wants them, iPhones would last longer and Apple would sell less units overall, but the actual numbers are impossible to calculate since Apple stops providing software support to older devices, and App's stop working, forcing an upgrade anyway.

Conclusion

Apple has always been a company that lives and dies on its reputation for over-engineering, stability, security and reliability. That's why we use Apple everywhere, and it's why most customers choose apple.

Whether it's breaking down the ecosystem allowing un-vetted and potentially malicious apps, or facilitating third party repair with parts and documentation, Apple is more than aware that its reputation and revenue is at risk.

I've discussed this in depth with many companies over the last 6 months, and the general opinion in the business market is that users will be prevented from installing third party AppStores, and businesses will be sticking within the ecosystem.

Personal users on the other hand are expressing mixed views, and its far too early to see how this will affect the market, and how Apple will respond.

Blog Index   PermaLink   Comment           5 Votes