An analysis of the App Store debate through the lens of history surrounding Windows and why curated app stores on smartphones have been beneficial to users
The App Store debate has split into two camps publishing within days of each other: Steven Sinofsky argues from his Windows-era experience — detailed in his earlier look at the PC business as growth stalled at 3% in 2009 — that curation protected users from the malware-and-shovelware era of unmanaged distribution, while a same-day counterpiece contends the App Store brings in users simply because it is the only choice available, not because its marketing helps developers.
Sinofsky's framing matters because it imports the one historical dataset both sides claim: the pre-iPhone Windows ecosystem, where open distribution coexisted with quality problems. The pro-curation side gets further support from John Gruber's argument that the store's real job is steering third-party apps toward excellence, citing Gmail's five-year delay in shipping split-screen multitasking on iPad as evidence review pressure shapes product quality.
First-order effects
Developers and policymakers watching the App Store fight now face two grounded narratives instead of one: Sinofsky's Windows-history case for curation versus the 'sole distribution channel' critique, forcing each side to argue on evidence rather than principle.
Second-order effects
Apple gains a credible third-party historical defense it did not write itself — an ex-Microsoft executive attributing mobile app quality to curation — which strengthens its position against developers who frame the store primarily as a rent-extracting gate.
Third-order effects
If the debate settles into 'curation benefits users' against 'exclusivity harms developers', the eventual policy outcome will likely be contestable gatekeeping — preserving review while opening distribution — rather than either fully open sideloading or the status quo.
The trend: Arguments over smartphone app stores are shifting from developer grievance toward historical and consumer-welfare framing, with platform veterans like Sinofsky supplying the precedent Apple needs.
Debate/discussion/rants about app stores (or perhaps The App Store) have rapidly polarized to the point where it seems difficult to have a rational discussion. Even trying to discuss is viewed as a defense. A discussion without defending. The situations are similar, really. 1/
@stevesi Great thread. Brought back memories of countless “OPKFests” in Redmond. 1st 8 years at Compaq/HP I was on the OS Engineering team, adapting the OPK to our factory preinstall environment. Now I'm an iOS developer seeing the same cat-and-mouse I had to play with Microsoft.
.@stevesi has compiled his excellent Twitter thread comparing the situation involving Windows, crapware, and the user experience to smartphones an app stores. Regardless of where you are on this debate, it's worth your time to read. https://twitter.com/...
@jezell Yes. A big motivator for the thread is to point out two things. First that the reason app stores matter so much is because of the history demonstrated. Second, there is a complex relationship between partners in an ecosystem involving platforms and APIs.
@reneritchie There's only one thing: would it be different if there were competition for distribution apps to the iPhone. Everything is just an expression of that argument through a different lens
Steven's written a great history lesson on the value the App Store provides compared to the Wild West of Windows PC ecosystem. That said there's a big difference between the App Store providing genuine value & Apple being entitled to 30% of revenue if the customer owns an iPhone …
@Carnage4Life There is a Grand Canyon between anyone can install anything and multi-platform service has to install a parallel monetization system to support their customers on the iPhone.
A hill I would die on: curated app stores have been hugely, unambiguously good for users and software developers, and especially for user security and privacy. 1/
/PS Rolled this up and annotated with new content including: the rationality of ecosystem actors, ecosystem optimization, most favored nation status, and what's a fair “take” & more. Let's keep discussing here. The App Store Debate: A Story of Ecosystems https://medium.learningby…
There is a quite widespread idea that you can retain the safety, privacy and trust benefits of the sandboxed app model while solving the question of Apple's policies if you let people install multiple app stores. I think this is it completely wrong 1/
Think the App Store's 30% cut is expensive? Try the Kindle store, where Amazon may charge as much as 65% of your book sale price. And even that might look cheap compared to physical retail. https://capiche.com/...
@stevesi puts the App Store debate into the historical context surrounding Windows and shows why curated app stores make sense for users, even if developers don't like them. It's a long thread, but well documented and worth reading. https://twitter.com/...
The funny thing about this App Store thing is that absolutely nobody has said anything that people didn't say a decade ago. The only thing that's changed is that Apple is now big enough to be firmly in the anti-trust crosshairs
We've been arguing about Apple's payment rules since the app store began. From day 1, there has been stuff that should clearly use IAP, stuff that obviously can't, and a huge grey area in the middle where Apple's rules are fuzzy, arbitrary & often look like pure rent-seeking 1/