> First there is way more money to be made on iOS users and secondly sometimes you wait to strike until you can knock down all the pins, not just half.
iOS users do spend more money on App Store purchases than Android. But if Meta's whole intention to build a 3rd party App Store is to mine them for data, why didn't they try that on Android- shouldn't the data of Android users be just as good, especially when they have a significantly larger user pool to do that with? Why would iOS users' data be more lucrative? Spending money on the App Store is orthogonal to having more desirable data to sell.
> It will start innocent enough, they will add 1-2 features only available in "Facebook Pro/Full/Unleashed/etc" via their own app store/sideloading but over time they will sneak more and more sinister things into their app.
Easy to conceive, difficult to execute. This scenario might have been feasible a decade ago, when Facebook was younger, their brand was fresher, and customers less jaded. If they were to do that today, they would immediately face friction from users who do not care for more fragmentation of services, and aren't even as engaged with the product as they used to. Maybe they could try to segment off a more popular product, say Instagram, but that would also cause blowback.
> Google will use the full weight of their ecosystem to try to get you to download Chrome or their other apps anytime you touch one of their sites in Safari (it's bad enough now even with them using webkit for their "browser").
And why wouldn't EU/US courts apply antitrust laws against them? Why is antitrust law assumed to be only used against Apple, when legislators/regulators are miffed at all the large tech companies?
I find the whole hypothetical of third party iOS app stores fascinating, because any examination into the landscape of app ecosystems show that they are bloody difficult to build. Ask Microsoft with the Windows Phone Store, or RIM with the BlackBerry Marketplace. Or just Amazon and Samsung with their third party Android app stores, which seem to exist mostly to service users on their own OEM Fire or Galaxy devices.
The idea that Facebook or Google can just make third party app stores and everyone will flock to them is just a questionable, reductionist scenario that flies in the face of creeping consumer burnout in the present day, those companies' continued difficulties in creating new compelling products to woo consumers, and all of the failed app stores of the past. (As Ballmer said, it's all about the developers.) They would have to be cleverer about it. So far, I've yet to see any comprehensive hypotheticals that really deal with past and present realities about the difficulties in setting up such rival ecosystems.
> Why would iOS users' data be more lucrative? Spending money on the App Store is orthogonal to having more desirable data to sell.
This just isn't true. The data of people who have more money to spend is more attractive than that of those who do not. Also having more money to spend means that data can be used for targeted advertising or just knowing what people with money are interested in and where to focus efforts.
> Easy to conceive, difficult to execute. This scenario might have been feasible a decade ago, when Facebook was younger, their brand was fresher, and customers less jaded.
I mean, if you are still on FB and use it regularly there really isn't much hope for you at this point. I don't get the impression that there is a large number of people on FB saying "If they step over the line 1 more time I'm leaving", at this point it's people who just don't care. To some degree the same is true for IG even though it's users like to think it's different. It doesn't even have to be new features, it could just be something like groups (which I think failed) or messenger that they take away features or apps and only release them on their own store. They can even make a big hullabaloo about "This lets us get fixes and features out to you faster and lets you easily opt into our beta channel".
> And why wouldn't EU/US courts apply antitrust laws against them? Why is antitrust law assumed to be only used against Apple now, when legislators/regulators are miffed at all the large tech companies?
Why haven't they indeed? Their bad behavior is clearly visible, I'm completely unclear as to what the EU doesn't seem to care. They seem to be laser focused on mobile to the determinant of desktop and consoles.
> I find the whole hypothetical of third party iOS app stores fascinating, because any examination into the landscape of app ecosystems show that they are bloody difficult to build. Ask Microsoft with the Windows Phone Store, or RIM with the BlackBerry Marketplace. Or just Amazon and Samsung with their third party Android app stores, which seem to exist mostly to service users on their own OEM Fire or Galaxy devices.
MS had devices/OS that no one wanted, RIM was late to the game and had their lunch eaten by that point. As for Amazon/Samsung they capture a lot of a value by making themselves the default but more importantly, all of these examples are platform providers, not app developers (at their root). Meaning, they make their money by taking a cut, not by selling apps themselves or even through ads in apps (maybe ads in their store). The calculus changes for someone like FB, EA, EPIC, etc, especially for less savory app creators who don't care about privacy. I'm not saying that FB will create a store and become the number 1 app store, but that they will release their apps via their own store (with it's own rules, or lack thereof) and users will be forced/tricked/incentivized into using it.
> The idea that Facebook or Google can just make third party app stores and everyone will flock to them is just a questionable, reductionist scenario that flies in the face of creeping consumer burnout in the present day, and all of the failed app stores of the past.
Flock to? Probably not and that's not even what I'm afraid of/worried about. It's being forced into using third-party stores. Either by the company removing their app from the Apple App Store or by gating features to the app only if it was installed via their store.
> This just isn't true. The data of people who have more money to spend is more attractive than that of those who do not. Also having more money to spend means that data can be used for targeted advertising or just knowing what people with money are interested in and where to focus efforts.
Still, Android has a far larger user base than iOS, and if this third party app store data funnel scheme was such a great idea, you'd think they would have tried it out there at least.
To date, Facebook's only attempts to branch off on mobile have been the Facebook Home Android UI/lock screen, and maybe the HTC First. Both don't really inspire confidence in future efforts, but sure, it's been a decade. Would you put money on modern FB being better at launching new successful products that consumers want, compared to FB ten years ago?
> I don't get the impression that there is a large number of people on FB saying "If they step over the line 1 more time I'm leaving", at this point it's people who just don't care.
It's more like, "If they ask me to sign up and manage yet another user account with payment methods and privacy settings and more notifications to worry about, I'm not going to bother and I'll use the mobile website." Or, "I don't even use Facebook much anymore, I'll just use it on desktop or not at all."
> They can even make a big hullabaloo about "This lets us get fixes and features out to you faster and lets you easily opt into our beta channel".
And users, even those who don't know or care about privacy, would be annoyed because this is another hoop they have to jump through, in the modern era where there are multitudes of social media networks, streaming platforms, and so forth to worry about. Many won't bother to sign up for yet another app store, and that will undercut Facebook's own user base.
You really need to get past this core problem of user burnout. Everything is fragmented across services these days. Perhaps there might even be a startup idea in it for easy account management/signup a la 1Password. I guess Sign In with Apple helps with this a little.
> Their bad behavior is clearly visible, I'm completely unclear as to what the EU doesn't seem to care. They seem to be laser focused on mobile to the determinant of desktop and consoles.
All in due time. Who says they don't care? Perhaps you should cast a wider net for news articles.
https://www.reuters.com/technology/google-targeted-fresh-eu-...
https://internationalbanker.com/technology/eu-antitrust-legi...
> MS had devices/OS that no one wanted,
People didn't want their OS because they couldn't secure the apps the people wanted. Which will also be an issue for these 3rd party app stores, as people can just go to the official store, or you deal with mutually assured destruction scenarios (see below).
> RIM was late to the game and had their lunch eaten by that point.
Fair, but couldn't you say the same about Meta/Google iOS stores?
> As for Amazon/Samsung they capture a lot of a value by making themselves the default but more importantly, all of these examples are platform providers, not app developers (at their root). Meaning, they make their money by taking a cut, not by selling apps themselves or even through ads in apps (maybe ads in their store).
I'm almost certain that Amazon just has it as a means to sell the content (eBooks, music, movies) that they host, and Samsung just packages as bloatware as it their wont. They don't actually invest in their Android 3rd party stores because there's no compelling reason to use them instead of the Play Store.
> The calculus changes for someone like FB, EA, EPIC, etc, especially for less savory app creators who don't care about privacy.
App creators are going to publish to multiple app stores to get the largest user base, though sure, as with game consoles, perhaps the ones running different stores might cut them exclusivity deals. Epic does want its own app store to get past the 30% cut, but I'm wondering if them or EA even has enough iOS games signed up with them for them to pursue the creation of yet another Origin store that gamers hate. I can't imagine the bulk of EA-affiliated mobile games being anything but tie-in material, not exactly Fortnite. Maybe they'll expand their mobile division, who knows. Ultimately, Apple Arcade is hard to beat.
> I'm not saying that FB will create a store and become the number 1 app store, but that they will release their apps via their own store (with it's own rules, or lack thereof) and users will be forced/tricked/incentivized into using it.
And that's the crux of it: I'm saying that's an act of MAD, because while the Apple App Store then loses their apps, it means Meta loses all of the customers who aren't going to bother to transition or just switch to mobile web, which is assuredly a non-zero number. Unless they can somehow make it a 100% seamless transition to create and manage yet another user account, it's going to be a hurdle for adoption. Especially if they're not offering anything other than their current apps- that's not enough to entice users to join, if anything that's a negative user experience, Meta is making it harder to use their existing products.
And Google taking G-Suite or other crucial apps off the official App Store? Forget about it, that sounds like prime antitrust fodder for the regulators.
Ultimately, these large corporations tend to run into difficulties playing in each other's sandboxes. Facebook/Google launching third party app stores would be far from a surefire success.