[HN Gopher] Epic, Spotify, and Tinder form advocacy group to pus...
___________________________________________________________________
Epic, Spotify, and Tinder form advocacy group to push for app store
changes
Author : poorman
Score : 717 points
Date : 2020-09-24 11:29 UTC (11 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (appfairness.org)
(TXT) w3m dump (appfairness.org)
| redsolver wrote:
| I think a solution to the App Store problem is to decentralize
| it, like the web. So I built a decentralized domain-based Android
| App Store: https://skydroid.app
| capableweb wrote:
| If Apple wanted, they could release a decentralized app store
| relatively quickly, by just allowing Cydia to exists and be
| installed without having to require root access to the device
| (actually don't know if Cydia still exists, basically a app for
| listing/searching/installing/removing apps from any repository
| online)
| redsolver wrote:
| Yep, that's basically what SkyDroid does, but it tries to be
| more user-friendly.
| danShumway wrote:
| Can we just link directly to the advocacy group's page
| (https://appfairness.org/)? I'm not certain the article is adding
| anything.
|
| ----
|
| I'm generally supportive of at least some of Epic's arguments
| towards Apple, and I do believe that Apple (and multiple other
| FAANG companies) are engaged in anti-competitive behavior that's
| currently hurting the market. But a lot of the arguments I'm
| reading on the App Fairness site in particular seem really poorly
| phrased, almost to the point of being incoherent.
|
| From their objection on "user freedom":
|
| > Think about this a little differently: A box of Cheerios costs
| about $3.00 at Kroger, but sometimes Cheerios offers a coupon
| which lowers the price to $2.50 at any store that offers
| Cheerios. What Apple is doing is basically like Kroger telling
| Cheerios that they're not allowed to offer coupons, and if they
| do, Cheerios is at risk of being kicked out of the cereal aisle.
| Consumers wouldn't stand for this type of monopolistic behavior
| over their cereal, so why should they allow it for the apps used
| on their mobile devices?
|
| I had to think really hard what they mean by this and how it
| actually relates to user freedom. Most resellers _are_ allowed to
| choose their own prices for goods. I don 't think this analogy
| corresponds at all to what Apple is doing. Apple is banning apps
| from telling consumers _in app_ about other purchasing options.
| That 's a totally different objection.
|
| I'm pleased to see developers banding together, but if this is
| the result then I wish they'd spend more time making more
| reasonable, understandable arguments. If this site was my first
| introduction to the debate over app store policies, I think I'd
| probably be on Apple's side.
| graeme wrote:
| Indeed, what is the cheerios example supposed to show? I don't
| expect the discount coupon comes out of the store's cut. Tinder
| or Epic are free to discount boosts or in game purchases, and
| spotify can give free months.
|
| The cheerios example probably involves a fair bit of
| negotiation between manufacturer and retailer. Whereas apps can
| discount whenever they choose, without permission.
| grawprog wrote:
| > I don't expect the discount coupon comes out of the store's
| cut.
|
| That's how it used to work at the grocery store I worked at.
| The flyers were prepared a couple weeks in advance, the sales
| matched up with every other store that ordered food from
| loblaws, it was ordered down from loblaws to the stores that
| carry the products they ship and sell what things would be on
| sale on any given week throughout all the stores.
|
| This is why superstores, extra foods, the independent grocers
| and super valus all have the same stuff on sale the same
| weeks.
|
| The only things the store decided to put on sale was
| clearance stuff getting close to the expiry date.
| graeme wrote:
| Those are loblaws sales. The argument was instead talking
| about those little coupons you can clip out of cardboard in
| the boxes.
|
| So like you physically cut up the cheerios box and can get
| 50 cents off cheerios at participating retailers.
| danShumway wrote:
| Right. I'm honestly having a hard time thinking of situations
| where a seller like Cheerios would be able to say, "no,
| _everyone_ is going to offer our products at $2.50 for the
| next week. " I'd be tempted to call that anticompetitive in
| the opposite direction, of course a seller should be allowed
| to set their own prices and decide for themselves whether
| they want to participate in a promotion.
|
| It's not like there aren't at least somewhat better analogies
| they could have used. Imagine if you bought an Apple Phone
| from Best Buy and then that compiled version of iOS wasn't
| allowed to mention anywhere that you could get support from
| Genius Bars instead of Best Buy. Or imagine if you bought a
| vacuum cleaner from Walmart, and the manufacturer wasn't
| allowed to include any inserts inside of the box that linked
| to their own store for replacement parts.
|
| But even with a better analogy, why is this argument being
| brought up in this specific section? I expected their user
| freedom section to talk more about sideloading, or right to
| repair, or emulation, and they just _can 't_ stop fixating on
| the 30% fee.
|
| From the same section:
|
| > Here's an example of how this problem manifests itself:
| Epic produces once of the most popular video games of all
| time, Fortnite. If a Fortnite player were to buy an upgrade
| in the App Store, that individual might be charged $9.99.
| However, that same upgrade costs only $7.99 when purchased
| directly through Epic.
|
| Cool argument, but that has nothing to do with user freedom;
| users are still perfectly free to buy upgrades from Epic
| directly.
|
| It feels like they came up with one objection and then poorly
| pasted it into 3 sections.
| gowld wrote:
| > having a hard time thinking of situations where a seller
| like Cheerios would be able to say, "no, everyone is going
| to offer our products at $2.50 for the next week."
|
| Because MRP (minimum resale price) is often illegal (bit
| it's complicated https://www.ftc.gov/tips-
| advice/competition-guidance/guide-a...)
|
| MAP (minimum advertised price) is more permitted, which is
| why Amazon often makes you put items in your cart to see
| the discounted price.
| dpratt wrote:
| This is a flawed analogy. The correct one would be Cheerios
| printing "If you buy me at Costco, I cost $1 less" on the
| outside of the box. No rational retailer that isn't Costco
| would carry that product.
| kevincox wrote:
| However the flaw in your analogy is that there is very little
| lock-in to particular retailers where is there is a huge
| lock-in to a phone you just bought.
| realusername wrote:
| And additionally there's dozens of supermarkets, thin
| margins and high competition. The mobile app market has
| exactly two companies with the exact same fees...
| danShumway wrote:
| Eh. A better analogy would be Cheerios sticking an insert
| inside their box of cereal that said, "save $1 at Costco".
| That kind of behavior is pretty common with physical
| retailers; most boxed products I buy will contain inserts
| that advertise replacement parts and other products from
| other sources.
|
| Apple isn't just banning apps from mentioning competing
| stores in app descriptions, it's banning them from mentioning
| competing stores _inside the app_.
| jonny_eh wrote:
| This! Even better would be an insert in the box saying "buy
| future Cheerios from Cheerios.com at 30% off".
| dingaling wrote:
| I frequently receive inserts like that from sellers on
| eBay, promoting their own direct-sales site.
| syspec wrote:
| And there is a reason the seller is mentioning while
| trying to hide mentioning that to you from Ebay.
| ascagnel_ wrote:
| Serious question: what counts as "inside" the app, when the
| app itself is free?
|
| The free-to-play model that Epic is relying on (and, with
| some variability, the other players are relying on, where
| the apps themselves are "free" with a paid service)
| somewhat breaks the conventions we're used to discussing,
| and there aren't really analogies.
|
| The closest comparison I can make to these services are how
| PC MMORPGs (think World of Warcraft) used to be sold -- at
| retail, a user would make a single purchase that included a
| version of the game's client and a code that granted them
| some time in the game, so they'd be getting a "complete"
| product with the purchase. If Fortnite cost $5, but
| included whatever that'd convert to in VBucks, this
| discussion would be very, very different; same with if
| Spotify charged $10 for their app but included the first
| month free. In this case, Apple & Google, as retailers,
| would get their percentage (as non-recurring revenue), but
| Epic and Spotify would be free to continue booking 100% of
| revenue on an ongoing basis, but would need to invest a lot
| more in marketing, since free on-boarding is a massive
| driver for user adoption.
| danShumway wrote:
| For me, the price of the app isn't really the
| distinguishing characteristic of whether you're 'inside'
| the app or not.
|
| If I'm using a free app, and a bug causes it to break,
| would I report the bug to Apple or to the developer? If I
| saw something objectionable, or ugly, would I say that
| iOS is ugly, or would I blame the developer? I think that
| regardless of the price, when I'm using an app and I find
| myself in the state of attributing the experience to the
| developer instead of Apple, that means I'm playing in the
| developer's space, not Apple's. Getting past all of the
| analogies, what Apple is doing is saying that you're not
| allowed to mention competing storefronts even when you're
| inside your own space.
|
| In contrast, if I went to a app store page and the app
| store crashed, or the app didn't download, I'd contact
| Apple, because I'm not in the developer's space there,
| I'm in Apple's.
|
| There is some fuzziness there, and there's also some
| fuzziness around whether or not it's OK for Apple to
| decide what you can and can't do inside your own 'app
| space.' Different people can have different opinions on
| that, and ultimately the courts/Congress will probably
| end up deciding whether that is Ok.
|
| But that's the non-analogy, purely app-centric
| explanation I would use -- Apple is dictating what you
| can say to customers when you're in your own space, and
| they're doing that to a degree that goes beyond
| protecting users from malware or fraud. I personally
| think it's very difficult to argue that keeping people
| from mentioning prices elsewhere is a restriction that's
| purely designed to protect users. It's not really the
| same as restricting phishing attacks or fraud inside of
| an app would be. So to me, that makes me feel less
| charitable about arguments that Apple should be able to
| have that kind of control about what happens in the
| developer's space, because I don't see a compelling
| reason for them to have that power.
| ksk wrote:
| Its not on the outside of the box, its on the inside. Apple
| forbids in-app discussion. I wonder what Apple would say if
| the app had a browser component that directs users to a web-
| page. These draconian rules are such a clusterF* hope these
| guys succeed.
|
| BTW, all analogies are flawed in some manner or another. If
| you take away the abstraction, every single one breaks down.
| And then you end up talking about the intricacies of the
| thing you wanted to abstract away making it moot! :)
| spullara wrote:
| Their current position protects consumers from being
| defrauded. I'm all for it.
| ksk wrote:
| That is great, you can avoid using app stores you don't
| trust. Why prevent other users from using stores they
| trust? Apple isn't the only company that can run an
| online store. There are countless online web stores
| selling all kinds of things, and people trust them with
| their money. Apple is artificially preventing competition
| in iOS stores here because they can abuse their dominant
| position.
| zamalek wrote:
| Yes, but remember that retailers can (and often do) promise
| to match the best price that you can find at their
| competitors. This is because retailers are in competition
| with each other for the same products.
|
| This analogy does not apply to Apple, because it has no
| motivation to price match, because nobody is allowed to sell
| i-device apps except for Apple.
|
| Edit: in addition, if we follow your analogy further, Costco
| could demand 30% from Apple on all purchases made through the
| App Store, for iPhones sold in Costco. Just like Apple
| demands a cut of all purchases after they sell a product in
| their store.
| teawrecks wrote:
| There's no way to deny or even read their cookie policy without
| accepting it.
| m3kw9 wrote:
| There are 2 sides of analogies. I can also argue by saying Epic
| is analogous to a renter who doesn't want to pay rent. It's
| mostly because they can't find any other point but to find
| something similar.
| jmccaf wrote:
| There is 10e6 times more diverse supply in the rental market
| than for app stores, even though renting housing is a
| regulated market with high transaction cost.
| chacha2 wrote:
| Website's broken on my Firefox, won't scroll.
| nguyenkien wrote:
| Same problem on Edge chromium.
| dhagz wrote:
| If you're not auto-accepting cookies, then the site won't
| let you scroll/do anything until you accept them.
| Aissen wrote:
| Probably the cookie popup blocked by UBO preventing
| scrolling. Irony: you can't read the cookie policy without
| accepting it first.
| gbil wrote:
| Exactly. Which for me is a reason - no matter how much I
| hate Apple's tactics- to dismiss also this counter action.
| All of these entities just don't care for the users one way
| or the other
| lapcatsoftware wrote:
| Yes, I was thinking of joining, but the fact that the
| site didn't work without turning off my ad blocker was a
| turnoff. Why do they even need cookies? Terrible first
| impression.
| danShumway wrote:
| The amount of blindness I'm seeing from companies on both
| sides of this fight about how to handle their optics is
| kind of staggering.
|
| One of Apple's core arguments for why they need this kind
| of control is privacy. If someone is launching what is
| essentially a PR campaign against Apple, one of the
| _first_ things to do is to make sure the website doesn 't
| have any appearance of violating people's privacy.
|
| Make it work without JS, make it work without cookies. Be
| conscious of the target audience. Requiring cookies is a
| really tone-deaf decision for them to make.
| yazaddaruvala wrote:
| This. The problem is regardless of it being either side
| of Hanlon's razor, malice or stupidity, I have built
| trust with Apple and prefer the centralized Apple (over
| the decentralized dev-houses of the world) to do its best
| to ensure neither malice nor stupidity in the product I
| use most throughout the day.
| lapcatsoftware wrote:
| > I have built trust with Apple and prefer the
| centralized Apple (over the decentralized dev-houses of
| the world)
|
| IMO this is a false dichotomy. Epic and Spotify are not
| the size of Apple, but they're still giants compared to
| little indie developers.
|
| I trust indie devs _way_ more than any of the BigCos. It
| 's just natural: the fewer customers you have, and the
| less market power you have, the more you care, the more
| you have to care, about your individual customers.
| yazaddaruvala wrote:
| I appreciate this sentiment, but I've lived through too
| many of these transitions to agree. e.g. Blizzard,
| Google, YouTube, Curse, Sun Microsystems, Zynga,
| Minecraft, Occulus.
|
| Indie developers / startups either become the size of
| Epic and Spotify, or get bought by companies the size of
| Epic, Spotify and Apple.
|
| Find me the indie developers / startups that cannot be
| "corrupted" (converted?) and I'll invest as soon as they
| IPO.
|
| Meanwhile, there are some companies that make it their
| business model to build trust at scale. Apple, Valve,
| Nintendo, Microsoft (exclusively for enterprise clients)
| are a few great examples.
| lapcatsoftware wrote:
| Why do you conflate indie developers with startups?
| They're entirely different.
| yazaddaruvala wrote:
| For me they are both: Small groups of people passionately
| working towards a unique vision, typically under-funded
| to address a niche that is under-represented / under-
| invested by "the incumbents".
|
| I'd be happy to view them differently. I just haven't
| been educated on the differences.
| mandelbrotwurst wrote:
| The "Cookie Policy" text on that element links to it.
| Aissen wrote:
| Yes, and then the page has the exact same overlay and
| scroll prevention, preventing reading the full policy
| (and obscuring the top of the page).
| NikolaeVarius wrote:
| Works fine on 3 different versions of Firefox.
| dang wrote:
| Ok, we've changed the URL from
| https://www.wsj.com/articles/fortnite-maker-spotify-form-
| adv....
| sithadmin wrote:
| Your cereal aisle analogy is a bad one, for two reasons.
|
| For one, everything about the merchandising of a particular
| product in a big box store is agreed upon in advance between
| the retailer and the manufacturer before the product is placed
| in the store: the product placement on the shelves; what kind
| of manufacturer incentives (e.g. coupons) the retailer will
| honor for the product and how renumerations will be made from
| the manufacturer to the retailer for them; what kind of sales
| volume is required to trigger volume discounts, etc. These
| agreements are highly bespoke in a way that couldn't be scaled
| with the sort of volume that's on app stores.
|
| Second - physical retailers are compensated by the manufacturer
| when they accept a manufacturer's coupon. The transactions are
| logged, summarized, and traditionally the physical coupons were
| collected and sent to the manufacturer. Barring a pre-
| negotiated agreement to accept less than face value in exchange
| for a coupon, the retailer isn't losing revenue on the deal.
| However, when an app publisher offers a means to circumvent the
| app store payment system, Apple/Google DO in fact face a loss
| of revenue.
| danShumway wrote:
| It's not my cereal analogy, it's theirs. I brought it up
| specifically to showcase that a lot of the arguments I'm
| reading on their site don't map the current situation.
| swiley wrote:
| Wow that site was disappointing.
|
| It focused mostly on the 30% apple charges, which is both
| common and reasonable. It mentions the anti competitive
| behavior but mostly how it inflates prices, which is exactly
| how apple is trying to frame the debate.
|
| Also they have cookies on an entirely static site _and disable
| scrolling_ until you press accept in the cookie dick bar
| (something you should probably never do, certainly not on a
| static site.) The thing is only readable in w3m /elinks.
|
| In my (unpopular) opinion almost all of these "apps" should
| really be sites anyway. App store curation doesn't provide any
| reall security (especially since the apps are never
| instrumented) so someone so incapable of measuring the safety
| of software that they need that level of infantilesation should
| really only trust software to the same degree a browser does
| (that is, not at all.)
| DeusExMachina wrote:
| Common and reasonable according to which standards? One of
| the arguments of Epic in court is that Apple set the standard
| and other stores are simply following it.
| dgellow wrote:
| What I learned from past experiences is to never use analogies.
| They are almost always a source of distraction, people start to
| argue about the analogy itself instead of the topic at hand,
| which is almost always completely counter productive.
|
| Also it often only makes sense in the mind of the author...
| munificent wrote:
| _> They are almost always a source of distraction, people
| start to argue about the analogy itself instead of the topic
| at hand, which is almost always completely counter
| productive._
|
| My experience is that this is very true among a certain group
| of people, particularly literal-minded software enngineer
| types. But it is much less true in the general population
| where a single good analogy can accomplish more than pages of
| prose.
| brendoelfrendo wrote:
| See: further down this thread where literal-minded software
| engineers all try to "fix" this analogy but can't agree on
| how.
| tomarr wrote:
| "It's like two bald men fighting over a comb"
| lotsofpulp wrote:
| My experience is analogies are erroneously as supporting
| arguments to jump from premise to conclusion of an
| unrelated topic. I saw them a lot at my family's various
| religious/cult gatherings when I was a kid. The preacher
| would state something and then "prove" it with an analogy.
|
| Analogies don't accomplish anything in basically all of the
| uses I've seen. People want them to serve as proof, but
| it's a lazy way of getting out of showing the validity of a
| conclusion.
| tomcatfish wrote:
| I'd like to try to change your mind on analogies, and
| even without analogies (although I _will_ use an
| example)!
|
| Analogies are an attempt to generalize an argument. Say
| we are trying to prove that "It will rain" is a valid
| conclusion from "If it is cloudy it will rain and it is
| cloudy". We can generalize this to "A -> B" & "B" -> "B",
| which you will recognize as an application of modus
| ponens from formal logic. Analogies try to use this power
| on fuzzier topics.
|
| A normative principle like "We should build a new post
| office" are so abstract that they cannot be tackled head
| on (try defining "should" in the comments section and
| having no one point out a flaw to see why this is
| difficult). Because of this, we try to make comparison to
| other, seemingly similar, cases in an attempt to draw out
| the underlying logical structure. Because of this, I
| think they are a powerful and useful argumentative
| strategy.
| lotsofpulp wrote:
| I agree that analogies are useful to illustrate (in some
| scenarios), but I would not use them to support my
| argument (outside of a discrete math course).
|
| If I were to argue that Apple's app store policies were
| harmful, then I would do just that. I would define terms,
| define the parties involved, show the harm and to which
| parties, maybe provide some examples, show which laws it
| violates, and maybe suggest solutions.
|
| But I don't see why involving Cheerios at a brick and
| mortar retail store would help clear anything up.
| nostrademons wrote:
| That's assuming a level of critical thinking that exists
| on HN and a few other forums but isn't really common to
| the general public.
|
| Most people go into a new topic or new issue area with a
| basically neutral stance. They aren't looking to disprove
| the argument, nor do they even view it as an argument.
| Rather, they're thinking "OK, show me how this is
| relevant - tie it into my life and how it affects me,
| then I'll make up my mind based on my feelings
| afterwards" (in a far more subconscious way - basically
| nobody actually goes through these thoughts consciously).
| Analogies are your chance to do that. Get the right one
| and people associate your issue with something they
| already hold a positive position on. Get the wrong one
| and they just ignore you.
| lotsofpulp wrote:
| Or bad actors can use analogies to mislead people. Or a
| neutral actor erroneously uses them and the result is
| still misinformed people. My opinion is analogies do more
| harm than good, at best wasting people's time, and at
| worst, resulting in people coming to the wrong
| conclusions.
| chefandy wrote:
| All language constructs can be abused. The problem is
| lying, not the rhetorical mechanism.
| lotsofpulp wrote:
| People should be educated the rhetorical mechanism they
| are using doesn't do what they think it does, though.
| It's part of developing critical thinking skills. It
| would help people not get taken advantage of, too.
| mattnewton wrote:
| In this case the problem is constructing poor models and
| using them to understand the world; it doesn't have to be
| used to intentionally mislead, people often can use
| analogies to explain things to themselves and get it
| wrong.
|
| It's not without it's uses as a technique but you have to
| make sure the model the analogy constructs is, well,
| actually analogous to the situation you are modeling.
| hrktb wrote:
| > a single good analogy can accomplish more than pages of
| prose
|
| I think that's where the danger lies. In the end we are not
| explaining much, just passing a vision of the issue in
| terms of good/bad/meh depending on the analogy we choose.
|
| That's also how we convince people a lot of stuff is just
| "against freedom", or "big <xxxx> acting selfishly" etc.
|
| As you say it accomplishes something, people take a
| position very quickly. But is it a good thing ? I'm torn.
| munificent wrote:
| I think what you're noting is that analogies are powerful
| tools. They can create a deep visceral association
| between A nd B that strongly affects how someone feels
| about B based on their existing feelings about A.
|
| Like any powerful tool, it can be misused. But it can
| also do great good when used well. We live in a world
| surrounded by fiendishly complex systems with layers of
| abstractions and deep chains of emergent phenomena. Our
| primate brains aren't geared to process the consequences
| of our actions in a space that far removed from the
| forests where we evolved.
|
| Analogies are one of the best tools I know to let us do
| that. But we do have to be careful about which analogies
| we choose to believe.
| curiousllama wrote:
| Analogies can be powerful if told well. It just so happens
| that they're hard to tell well.
|
| Source: Cheerios
| lotsofpulp wrote:
| What does it mean for an analogy to be powerful? I
| typically see analogies used to support an argument, which
| analogies don't do. Hence you see the conversation break
| down into whether or not the analogy is accurate or not.
|
| Analogies illustrate a concept. They don't establish
| reasoning or causation or proof.
| leetcrew wrote:
| argument by analogy is something like A -> B, C is
| similar to A in all ways that matter, thus (A -> B) -> (C
| -> D). analogies are powerful when the other person
| already agrees that (A -> B) and doesn't notice any
| important differences between A and C. if you use an
| analogy where the other person doesn't agree that A -> B
| in the first place, you'll never get anywhere. if they
| are really stubborn, they will come up with an endless
| list of reasons why A isn't quite like C, but at least
| you have a chance of refuting these.
|
| analogies are not very good in arguments where the other
| person is resisting the conclusion you want to draw. they
| can be great when you are trying to teach/explain
| something to someone who trusts you though.
| lotsofpulp wrote:
| > C is similar to A in all ways that matter
|
| I have never seen this be determine-able in real life
| scenarios
|
| >analogies are not very good in arguments where the other
| person is resisting the conclusion you want to draw. they
| can be great when you are trying to teach/explain
| something to someone who trusts you though.
|
| This is a great statement to show why analogies are bad
| and how they are abused.
| leetcrew wrote:
| I wouldn't agree that analogies are bad, per se. as a
| sibling to my original comment pointed out, an analogy is
| essentially an informal isomorphism. this is a perfectly
| valid way of proving things in math, and it can often
| lead guide you to valid conclusions in mathematically
| grounded fields like physics.
|
| >> C is similar to A in all ways that matter
|
| > I have never seen this be determine-able in real life
| scenarios
|
| this much I can agree on. when discussing human issues,
| analogies should be understood to be solely a rhetorical
| device, useful for persuading people, but not so much for
| getting to the truth of the matter.
| curiousllama wrote:
| > Analogies illustrate a concept
|
| Effectively illustrating the right concept is, in my
| opinion, the hardest part of communication. Analogies are
| powerful because they're intuitive illustrations.
|
| > I typically see analogies used to support an argument,
| which analogies don't do
|
| Yes and no. Analogies communicate concepts, and concepts
| support arguments. Analogies neither support arguments
| nor fail to support arguments; the concepts they
| communicate do that.
|
| They're hard to use because they can be distracting: if
| you choose the wrong analogy, you may illustrate an
| irrelevant concept, rather than the one you mean to.
| That's why people argue: you mean to illustrate [concept
| A], but what pops into the receiver's mind is [concept A]
| AND [concept B]. So now you're not on the same page about
| what was just said.
|
| Look at the cheerios example: how may related-but-not-
| the-same examples have popped up in the comments? It's a
| bad analogy: it needs to be much more narrow and
| specific.
| dev_tty01 wrote:
| This distracting off-topic sub-thread about distracting
| analogies is wonderfully ironic.
| slaymaker1907 wrote:
| They can certainly work as a proof, it's just one of the
| conditions on it being proof usually fail. Argument by
| metaphor says that A and B are isomorphic to one another
| and that since they are isomorphic, we can apply proofs
| from A to B (maybe with some modification). The problems
| come from either establishing the isomorphism or in
| mapping properties/predicates from one to the other.
| mikepurvis wrote:
| I think they can be helpful for achieving that initial
| critical mass of understanding around a topic ("a is to b
| as x is to y... oh okay, I better understand the
| relationship between a and b"), but yeah, if you don't
| unwind the analogy afterward, then it can be a false
| understanding.
|
| I found this kind of thing a struggle in engineering math
| courses, where you'd often move equations into
| transformed spaces (frequency domain, whatever), perform
| operations on them, and then un-transform them to pop out
| a result. It's like, yes, the transform is obviously an
| immensely powerful abstraction, but I didn't really trust
| what was going on in there unless I did at least a few of
| the exercises from first principles as well, in order to
| prove to myself that doing operations in the transformed
| space was "safe".
| Vinnl wrote:
| Agreed. Analogies are like trying to draw attention to
| traffic signage by decorating them with scantily-clad people.
| joekim wrote:
| > What I learned from past experiences is to never use
| analogies. They are almost always a source of distraction,
| people start to argue about the analogy itself instead of the
| topic at hand, which is almost always completely counter
| productive.
|
| As other's have mentioned, perhaps this is only for literal
| minded thinkers. In Pre-suasion by Robert Cialdini metaphors
| are identified as the most effective persuasion device.
| Essentially, take something the audience understands well and
| use it explain something else.
|
| An anecdote Cialdini provides is from a person who had many
| years of being the top life insurance salesman in the
| country. He used a metaphor of "when you check out, your life
| insurance checks in". The metaphor brought up feelings of
| abandonment and support in a way that people quickly
| understood and bought into.
| lotsofpulp wrote:
| That's exactly the problem with analogies. It fools people
| by falsely parading as a valid argument.
|
| Edit: The use of a life insurance salesman as an example is
| hilariously appropriate given the scam that whole life
| insurance is and how many people are fooled into buying it.
| mardifoufs wrote:
| Im curious, how is life insurance a scam? Yes investing
| the money is probably better, but insurance is a hedge
| against the risk of not having saved enough because of an
| early death. I'm not familiar with the life insurance
| industry though, so I'm maybe missing something!
| lotsofpulp wrote:
| Insurance is for minimizing losses you can't afford. Term
| life insurance is good if you have dependents and their
| life would be negatively impacted by the loss of your
| income. There is very little profit and commission in
| term life insurance, so life insurance salesmen will push
| whole life.
|
| Whole life insurance is rarely necessary, and extremely
| expensive compared to the alternatives. See links below.
|
| https://www.whitecoatinvestor.com/what-you-need-to-know-
| abou...
|
| https://www.whitecoatinvestor.com/debunking-the-myths-of-
| who...
|
| https://www.bogleheads.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=5715
| 4
| mattnewton wrote:
| Also it's used as a part of a strategy to hide money from
| taxes in a term policy, where you can later "borrow"
| against your premiums to pull your money out later in a
| lower tax situation. That seems to be the main purpose of
| large life insurance policies I have seen among wealthy
| people.
| lotsofpulp wrote:
| That applies to so few people though. Most people who buy
| it are just wasting money. In my experience, immigrants
| with few assets who don't know better are targeted by
| immigrants of their own race (since they're presumed to
| be more trustworthy).
|
| https://www.whitecoatinvestor.com/appropriate-uses-of-
| perman...
| chefandy wrote:
| Analogies are like regular expressions...
| IshKebab wrote:
| I agree. Analogies are never perfect, and people always pick
| apart the bits of the analogy that aren't actually relevant.
| teawrecks wrote:
| Hofstadter would like to have a word with you.
|
| Seriously though, there's good evidence that literally
| everything the human brain does is use analogies. The classic
| example being if I asked whether something is "in" your field
| of view. Without even thinking, you know how to conceptualize
| something that only exist in your mind as a physical
| container.
| porknubbins wrote:
| Every journalistic or popular science or economics book I've
| read recently seems to go to great lengths to come up with
| helpful analogies (sometimes dragging on for pages.) But
| there is a fundamental contradiction in that the topic of the
| book is supposedly interesting or remarkable because
| something about it is novel, otherwise the book wouldn't need
| to exist. The analogy can give readers a fake feeling of
| following along, but whenever I study the topic in detail I
| find the analogy based understanding was incorrect.
| chiefalchemist wrote:
| Analogies being bad? I think it depends where. Here on HN?
| Yeah, despite it's affinity for the straight and narrow
| threads go often the rails often enough. Sure, the discourse
| is civil. But it's still off on a pointless tangent.
| spullara wrote:
| When someone offers a coupon, that company pays the store the
| difference. I don't think they are asking to do that.
| sushid wrote:
| I'm guessing you don't have a CPG background. It's a horribly
| flawed analogy as retailer can and will demand special SKUs,
| kick brands off of aisle all the time, demand premiums for
| shelving units, etc.
| actuator wrote:
| Why is Microsoft not in on this? Apple didn't allow Xbox Game
| Pass, while Samsung was proudly showcasing gaming on their phones
| on it.
|
| They seem to be the most hard done by unfair Apple practices. As
| far as I understand, they are not allowing the gaming service at
| all when it for all intents is nothing different from Netflix in
| principle.
|
| I certainly hope Microsoft joins in on this and not cut a side
| deal, it will hurt other devs in the long run.
| cwhiz wrote:
| Microsoft does not allow anyone else to sell digital Xbox
| games.
|
| This is the crux of all of this. Apple is doing what everyone
| else is doing. Google charges 30% and kicked Fortnite off the
| play store. Steam charges 15-30%. Microsoft and Sony have a
| monopoly on digital distribution of games on their console
| platforms, and charge some percent that I can't easily find.
|
| Hell, if you take this thought to conclusion, Epic has a
| monopoly on the Fortnite digital store.
|
| The idea that Apple is a monopoly is pretty silly. There is
| obviously smartphone competition, and Apple is a minority
| player. The idea that Apple has a monopoly on iOS and the App
| Store is true... but if that is illegal then it should also be
| illegal for Epic to have a monopoly on skins in Rocket League.
| I find that to be a pretty preposterous proposition.
| actuator wrote:
| > Apple is doing what everyone else is doing
|
| Microsoft has the Xbox Game Pass app on Android, Apple is
| doing the opposite.
|
| > but if that is illegal then it should also be illegal for
| Epic to have a monopoly on skins in Rocket League.
|
| I think the analogy doesn't fit. Like a laptop/desktop,
| smartphones are general computing platforms. Specific purpose
| devices like iPods, Nintendo Switch really don't fit into
| this category much less a game.
|
| Imagine if Microsoft had not allowed Windows to play nice
| with iPods, they wouldn't have sold the volumes they were
| able to move and Apple wouldn't have been able to built
| themselves back up.
|
| Smartphones/tablets have been the logical successors of
| desktops/laptops for a lot of consumers. They have to be open
| for others to flourish as well. The last thing I would want
| is for few companies to own everything, everyone should get a
| chance to compete on equal terms.
| cwhiz wrote:
| >Microsoft has the Xbox Game Pass app on Android, Apple is
| doing the opposite.
|
| I don't see the relevance? Microsoft does not allow any
| other company to distribute digital games for Microsoft
| consoles. You, nor anyone else, may create an Xbox store
| and sell digital games that will run on Xbox consoles.
|
| >I think the analogy doesn't fit. Like a laptop/desktop,
| smartphones are general computing platforms. Specific
| purpose devices like iPods, Nintendo Switch really doesn't
| fit into this category much less a game.
|
| If smartphones are computing platforms, then Apple doesn't
| have a monopoly, because then you can choose another
| computing platform. Apple products as computing platforms
| are an extreme minority. In order for Apple to have a
| monopoly you have to redefine the platform to be the App
| Store specifically. If you redefine the terms to just be
| the App Store, then that same definition would, and should,
| apply to any digital store.
|
| Should Microsoft and Sony be forced to allow the Steam
| Store within their respective consoles? Maybe? But perhaps
| that is the fate Microsoft is trying to avoid and why
| Microsoft aren't going nuclear on Apple.
|
| >The last thing I would want is for few companies to own
| everything, everyone should get a chance to compete on
| equal terms.
|
| Is that not what we have? If you don't like Apple then you
| can go buy an Android phone. If you don't like macOS you
| can go run Windows or Linux. Who has the monopoly here?
| actuator wrote:
| > I don't see the relevance? Microsoft does not allow any
| other company to distribute digital games for Microsoft
| consoles. You, nor anyone else, may create an Xbox store
| and sell digital games that will run on Xbox consoles.
|
| While I would even argue for openness there but you are
| comparing a specific use platform to a general computing
| platform.
|
| > Is that not what we have? If you don't like Apple then
| you can go buy an Android phone. If you don't like macOS
| you can go run Windows or Linux. Who has the monopoly
| here?
|
| I was talking about few companies owning everything in
| different verticals. I would want a independent music
| platform like Spotify to flourish and not just Apple
| Music. I would want an independent movie platform like
| Netflix to flourish and not just iTunes. You can see
| where I am going with this.
|
| > If smartphones are computing platforms, then Apple
| doesn't have a monopoly, because then you can choose
| another computing platform. Apple products as computing
| platforms are an extreme minority.
|
| Apple is not a minority by any stretch. They own half of
| the smartphones sold in US and a significant share in the
| world. If I am a platform like Spotify I have to be on
| it, otherwise I lose a significant userbase. Adding to
| this, a service like Hey saw 90% of the revenue come from
| iPhones. They were signing up users on the web, just
| turns out that 90% of their paying users had iPhones.
|
| Adding to that, Spotify has to compete with Apple Music
| which doesn't pay the 30% tax, gets free placement on the
| phone and store and deep integrations with their product.
|
| As a developer does this seem fair to you?
| cwhiz wrote:
| >While I would even argue for openness there but you are
| comparing a specific use platform to a general computing
| platform.
|
| I don't understand the distinction you are trying to
| make. How is iOS fundamentally different from the Xbox
| OS? Microsoft owns the OS and the hardware. Microsoft
| have several variants of the Xbox hardware for sale, and
| have a complete monopoly on digital game distribution
| through their OS.
|
| >Apple is not a minority by any stretch. They own half of
| the smartphones sold in US and a significant share in the
| world. If I am a platform like Spotify I have to be on
| it, otherwise I lose a significant userbase. Adding to
| this, a service like Hey saw 90% of the revenue come from
| iPhones. They were signing up users on the web, just
| turns out that 90% of their paying users had iPhones.
|
| According to IDC[0], Apple commands 14.4% of the
| worldwide market share. In the US, Apple commands a
| little under half [1]. Apple is unequivocally a minority
| player in the smartphone market.
|
| >Adding to that, Spotify has to compete with Apple Music
| which doesn't pay the 30% tax, gets free placement on the
| phone and store and deep integrations with their product.
|
| Spotify chooses to not deeply integrate with Apple.
| WatchOS allowed third party streaming several years ago
| and Spotify is one of the few music services out there
| that still refuse to support it. That's on Spotify and
| Spotify alone. The lack of a fee on the store could be
| considered unfair, but is no more fair or unfair than
| Google offering a music service, which they do.
|
| >As a developer does this seem fair to you?
|
| Not really, but that is beside the point to me. We have a
| free market and there are alternatives to Apple. If Apple
| has a monopoly then I think we need to fundamentally blow
| up this entire market, because by that definition nearly
| every tech company out there has a monopoly. I believe
| this line of reasoning would forbid Epic from exclusively
| selling cars in Rocket League, and I find that absurd. If
| I don't like the Apple platform I can go to a competitor
| and support them instead.
|
| [0]: https://www.idc.com/promo/smartphone-market-share/os
| [1]: https://www.statista.com/statistics/266572/market-
| share-held...
| actuator wrote:
| > How is iOS fundamentally different from the Xbox OS?
|
| If I have to explain in brief, because the intended use
| for it is to be a multipurpose OS just how Windows/OS X
| were. Xbox OS is about games and media streaming, while
| iOS/Android in addition to what Xbox OS does are about
| image editing, word processing, managing email, browsing
| web and much more. They are the spiritual successors to
| the laptop/desktop OSs.
|
| Platforms like these have an immense amount of power as
| they interface with plethora of devices and services.
| From a waiter taking order on his phone to a project
| manager leaving notes on docs on the go. The sheer amount
| of use cases for these platforms are huge. They inherit
| and expand the ecosystems that PCs had, there is
| trillions of dollars of value there for software and
| hardware makers. The ecosystem should not get
| consolidated in the hands of few companies.
|
| > According to IDC[0], Apple commands 14.4% of the
| worldwide market share. In the US, Apple commands a
| little under half [1]. Apple is unequivocally a minority
| player in the smartphone market.
|
| I think we are going around in circles on this. Even 14%
| worldwide is significant enough for me to ask for
| regulation but the right number to look at is, app
| revenue generated. I gave the example of Hey already, it
| is not that lopsided for everyone but it is significant.
| As a company, you can't afford to leave that aside.
|
| > WatchOS allowed third party streaming several years ago
|
| That is just one integration. It gets to be the first and
| even sole one on many other occasions.
|
| > but is no more fair or unfair than Google offering a
| music service, which they do.
|
| Google allows you to bypass this. Apple acting like a
| hypocrite even makes use of this. [1]
|
| > I believe this line of reasoning would forbid Epic from
| exclusively selling cars in Rocket League,
|
| You are again going for weird analogies. I have explained
| the rationale in this comment and the comments before.
|
| > If I don't like the Apple platform I can go to a
| competitor and support them instead.
|
| Except for Macbooks, that's what I did. I am not talking
| about my choice as an end user here, I am talking about
| my choice as a developer. If 50% of my revenue is from
| iOS, I really can't afford to not be there.
|
| [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23564247
| mirthflat83 wrote:
| > Even 14% worldwide is significant enough for me to ask
| for regulation
|
| Lmao.
| pokot0 wrote:
| To view the article, you need to accept the cookie policy. To
| read the cookie policy you need to accept the cookie policy. It's
| 2020. Ok.
| danoloan wrote:
| > cookies consent prompt for a static website
|
| > fairness
|
| boo hoo keep crying, you are all accomplices
| apetrovic wrote:
| I think that some of points are valid - especially the direct
| contact with the consumers. But the grand prize that Epic wants,
| the ability for anyone to put App store on iPhone, I hope that
| will never happen.
|
| I don't care about Epic, but the moment when that is allowed is
| the moment when three app stores into existence - Google's,
| Microsoft's and Facebook's. Most people can't avoid using
| software from these three companies, and right now, on iPhone,
| Google, FB and MS can track people only when their app is active.
| With always active app stores the ability for tracking and
| fingerprinting is much, much bigger, and would negate all recent
| privacy stuff from Apple.
| WA wrote:
| Why should an App Store need to be always active?
| temp667 wrote:
| Haha - this illustrates WHY the app store is so popular.
|
| You've got Match.com (owns tinder). Repeat FTC offender (most
| scammmers never get the FTC slap on the wrist).
|
| "Match Group also allegedly makes it too difficult to cancel a
| subscription through "confusing and cumbersome cancellation
| practices." The FTC claims users must click through two pages of
| survey questions and cites a 2015 internal presentation that
| notes the cancellation flow as "hard to find, tedious and
| confusing." "Members often think they've cancelled when they have
| not and end up with unwanted renewals," More recently they were
| doing the fake match emails to generate signups. I'm not sure if
| that case has settled yet.
|
| You've got Epic.
|
| They are pretty famous for targeting kids and getting them to
| spend their parents money, auto-saving payment info parents may
| enter to allow a single purchase, microtransactions nightmare and
| using "v bucks" / bannanas etc to make it less transparent in
| terms of what things are actually costing. Refund / complaint
| procedures are horrible. "When Stecklare tried to request a
| refund from Epic Games, she says, it was like hitting a brick
| wall. She sent multiple emails over several days but says she
| received only boilerplate responses."....
|
| Spotify
|
| They find no name bands they don't have to pay to do covers of
| major musical acts or replace the "best of..." albums with these
| trash albums. They've also been sued repeatedly over their
| royalty practices. The lawsuit (below) alleges that Spotify has
| participated in "an egregious, continuous and ongoing campaign of
| deliberate copyright infringement" around the mechanical license
| for many of the songs on its platform.
|
| Having these folks in charge of app subscriptions and setting
| standards inside the apple walled garden is going to be a TRAIN
| WRECK if they win this case. So much trust is going to be lost by
| users who are used to stuff in the apple world not having these
| and other scammers playing around in it.
| echelon wrote:
| Your perspective makes me sad. I'm honestly depressed because
| people rush to defend bad behavior of their favorite monopoly.
| Like, physically holding back tears. Serious.
|
| What is wrong with us?
|
| Our computers and technology have been locked down by anti-
| competitive juggernauts. Our legislators have written laws that
| cede more of our liberties and privacy. This modern internet
| sucks so much and I want to go back to when it was free.
|
| I want a world where we're free to install whatever we want on
| our devices or distribute our hard work to others without
| having to implement it 5 different ways.
|
| I don't want to be taxed by entities worth trillions. Before
| they stood up the walls, I could reach all the people I wanted
| for free. Now they've turned us into poor serfs.
|
| The last bastion, the web, is even under attack by the forces
| of embrace, extend, extinguish. Mozilla is dying, meanwhile
| Google is removing support for adblock, removing the URL,
| promoting web bundles with baked in DRM, ads, and tracking.
|
| These rent-seeking companies took all of the goodwill and
| amazing technology we developed in the open and they corrupted
| it. They saw the amazing capabilities we built, and realized
| exactly how they could adopt it, take control of it, and steer
| the public into their arms instead.
|
| 2020 doesn't suck. Everything since 2010 sucks. And it's
| getting worse.
| ilikehurdles wrote:
| > I want a world where we're free to install whatever we want
| on our devices or distribute our hard work to others without
| having to implement it 5 different ways.
|
| I do too, but your appeal to emotion is off-topic. This has
| nothing to do with the lawsuit. None of these companies want
| that, nor are they working toward that. Epic and Spotify are
| pushing their own walled gardens, they just want to do it
| with a bigger profit margin.
| Apocryphon wrote:
| Basecamp and Tile want walled gardens?
| ilikehurdles wrote:
| Epic and Spotify.
| echelon wrote:
| The downvotes for your parent and your follow-up retort
| don't make sense.
|
| I'm also backing these companies' argument and I don't
| want a walled garden. I want an open and competitive
| marketplace. I want to be able to distribute my software
| to everyone (like I used to be able to do).
| electriclove wrote:
| Are you not able to distribute your software to iOS
| devices?
| Apocryphon wrote:
| Sure, but what about the other names on the list? People
| are selectively focusing on only the major companies and
| neglecting that others have legitimate grievances.
| AlphaSite wrote:
| This article is about them, it makes sense that would be
| the focus.
| acituan wrote:
| > Epic and Spotify are pushing their own walled gardens,
| they just want to do it with a bigger profit margin.
|
| There is absolutely no problem with that because it cures
| the _one and only walled garden_ problem. If they implement
| a subpar walled garden, it will be up to the users to
| exercise _choice_ on using them, which they currently can
| 't.
|
| This is the core of the _opponent processes_ of markets. It
| is irrelevant to demand ideological purity from opponents,
| what matters is the resulting dynamics their actions
| create, in this case creating a previously non-existing
| competition space on iOS app installs.
| boarnoah wrote:
| Just for reference Epic has already shown us their
| playbook on how they plan to bootstrap a separate
| marketplace with the Epic Games Store on PC.
|
| Namely, paying for exclusivity onto their store (or more
| accurately paying for the developer to not release onto
| Steam - the current incumbent). I'm not sure how you can
| argue that they are helping users exercise choice when
| this is behavior they already engage in.
| 7786655 wrote:
| The users are free to choose not to buy those games. If
| the developers offered you a deal you don't like, don't
| take it.
| 411111111111111 wrote:
| Once Apple is legally required to allow third party app
| stores it will be possible to create open ones as well.
|
| Like f-droid , for iOS
| AlexandrB wrote:
| > If they implement a subpar walled garden, it will be up
| to the users to exercise choice on using them, which they
| currently can't.
|
| Epic games store is a very subpar walled garden. It's the
| only way to access several games that are either in
| exclusivity agreements with Epic or were purchased by
| Epic outright (RIP Rocket League). Spotify is (IMHO) a
| subpar walled garden. They recently purchased exclusivity
| for Joe Rogan, if you want to listen to him in the future
| you have to use Spotify. I don't see where in this
| process I get a choice of anything. These companies are
| not fighting for consumer choice, they just want to move
| more power over the consumer from one middle man (Apple)
| to another (themselves).
| bad_user wrote:
| I very much agree, but...
|
| > _They recently purchased exclusivity for Joe Rogan, if
| you want to listen to him in the future you have to use
| Spotify._
|
| Joe Rogan's podcast is anti-science crap. That it moved
| to a walled garden, restricting access to it, I find that
| as being a gift to the world.
| AlexandrB wrote:
| Eh. Not a fan myself, but it's a good example of highly
| popular content that Spotify is using to restrict
| consumer choice and promote their own platform.
| kbenson wrote:
| > None of these companies want that, nor are they working
| toward that.
|
| Being able to choose to run whatever you want on your own
| device is a necessary first step to opening up app stores
| to competition.
|
| They support the ideal because it's the only way to get
| what they want. It's a mistake to assume that since they
| are doing it for their own benefit that we all can't
| benefit as well.
| mbesto wrote:
| > I'm honestly depressed because people rush to defend bad
| behavior of their favorite monopoly.
|
| In favor of supporting a cartel who will essentially have the
| same power? I don't think the OP was defending Apple, just
| that the antagonist is likely just as awful.
| nemothekid wrote:
| > _I 'm honestly depressed because people rush to defend bad
| behavior of their favorite monopoly._
|
| While techies lived in their utopia, the rest of us without
| the ability to compile from source were tricked into
| downloading spyware, profiled, and scammed from dubious
| "developers". These problems were known, but nothing was done
| about them in the name of "developer freedom".
|
| A company comes along and offers the vast majority of people
| a safe computing environment at a premium. Surprise, surprise
| most people choose that and instead of having to trust
| N-developers to not do everything in their power to get a
| quick buck, I only have to trust 1, Apple, to do the
| filtering.
|
| The problem that I'm starting to see is most people here,
| being developers, naturally side themselves against Apple.
| The alternate perspective I have is that most _developers_
| are actually user hostile and Apple is the only one that has
| repeatedly shown to value my dollars over abusing my data or
| privacy. So, no, I 'm not "rooting" for Epic after the games
| industry and repeatedly shown they will abuse children with
| gambling mechanics. Why should fight for Match Group's rights
| at the detriment to my own?
| belltaco wrote:
| What does blocking XCloud and Stadia have to do with
| security and privacy? Many of the policies are about money
| while destroying developer freedom.
| starbugs wrote:
| Is a happy delusion preferable to a miserable reality?
|
| The App Store has become a virtual Truman Show. As long as
| you don't look beyond its simulated reality, it's a happy
| place.
|
| Developers have the perspective and ability to look behind
| the curtains. And what they find there is a truly miserable
| reality of unfair practices, deceptions, and even
| censorship.
|
| The philosophical answer to the question above has long
| been given. In the end, a miserable reality is always
| preferable to a happy delusion. And it's only a matter of
| time until "ordinary" users will discover that harsh truth
| themselves.
|
| Being a bit more unprotected is a small price in exchange
| to not losing your freedom.
| nemothekid wrote:
| > _Is a happy delusion preferable to a miserable
| reality?_
|
| Your miserable reality is one where:
|
| * Nation-states have full access to location data to many
| Americans
|
| * Ad companies abusing user data to push questionable
| products
|
| * Moneyed interests spreading disinformation through
| hypertargetting.
|
| This isn't hyperbole. Snowden already showed the length
| the USG was willing to go (1). Facebook is currently
| under fire for (2) and (3).
|
| So yes, I'd gladly trade away my freedom in my pocket toy
| to ensure I retain my freedoms in my everyday life. If
| it's unfair that Epic has to charge a 30% markup on
| "v-bucks" so be it. The Developer complaints, deceptions
| and censorship have been so laughably elementary compared
| to the level abuse that Apple's wall garden prevents. It,
| again, shows the level blindness that utopians who can
| build from source have ignored.
|
| If I cared about device freedom, there are plenty of
| phones on the market that provide that. However I have
| explicitly bought into Apple's platform in order to
| prevent developers from doing whatever they wish on my
| device.
| starbugs wrote:
| Your logical fallacy is to believe that you will retain
| your everyday life freedoms that way. The lines between
| digital and real life are already blurring. You will lose
| freedom in both this way.
|
| I hope for you that we utopians won't have to rescue you
| one day with our ability to build from source. If enough
| of your kind would exist, we might all be working for the
| FANGS and nobody will be there for you anymore.
| bonestamp2 wrote:
| > I want a world where we're free to install whatever we want
| on our devices
|
| We all have different opinions, so we're never going to get
| everything in this world to adhere to the same ideals. If you
| don't like Apple's approach as a consumer, use Android. Some
| of us like that Apple locks things down very tightly and want
| it to remain. It's not a perfect solution, but neither is
| Google's approach, so it's nice that there are two very
| different options.
|
| > or distribute our hard work to others without having to
| implement it 5 different ways.
|
| Even if Apple allows sideloading, this problem will still
| exist.
| callamdelaney wrote:
| The fact that this person opinion on the app store makes you
| cry may say more about you than them..
| notyourday wrote:
| > Your perspective makes me sad. I'm honestly depressed
| because people rush to defend bad behavior of their favorite
| monopoly. Like, physically holding back tears. Serious.
|
| As long as there's no law where if a company refuses to
| cancel a "recurring billing" with the same number of clicks
| that was done to create a recurring billing a customer can
| immediately collect N times the amount of subscription value
| from the company the likes of Epic, Match and Spotify can go
| and eff themselves. Customers like app store payments because
| the alternatives demonstrated to be swindling scum.
| croissants wrote:
| Genuine question, can you expand on what you mean by this:
|
| > Before they stood up the walls, I could reach all the
| people I wanted for free.
|
| What are you referring to? Blogging, social networks, forums,
| etc.?
| echelon wrote:
| The web and web downloads were 100% of the distribution
| channel.
|
| Now you can't distribute binaries without oversight and
| taxation.
|
| Also, web browsers on mobile are much less capable than on
| desktop.
| croissants wrote:
| Thanks for the response. When you say
|
| > Now you can't distribute binaries without oversight and
| taxation.
|
| do you mean selling software?
|
| On a slightly different note, I'm curious about how much
| of the change in your experience of the internet comes
| down to a change in its user base. I'm not sure when this
| happened, but I think the vast majority of internet users
| now consists of people who don't care about these issues
| at all, for better or for worse.
| alextheparrot wrote:
| This is the same as game consoles, so it has been the
| case for a long time. Consumers seem completely fine with
| relaxing that constraint if everything else "Just works".
| egypturnash wrote:
| Once you are no longer twelve, life's too fucking short
| to spend forever configuring your new graphics card
| unless you have explicitly decided that being A Gamer is
| your hobby.
| temp667 wrote:
| The "bad behavior"? Are you joking. You realize people pay
| apple EXTRA because they value their product? Their product
| holds its value far LONGER on the secondary market because it
| is maintained so well?
|
| You can get unlocked android phones and install whatever you
| want. But the reality for our parents / grandparents etc is
| that the folks who want to have root on their device want to
| scam them, auto bill them with non-cancelable billing etc etc
| etc, market to them by tracking everything, turn all their
| data over to the govt.
|
| We have basically one company who is trying to do a consumer
| / privacy first play. They went toe to toe with the DOJ to
| avoid unlocking the phone of a known shooter.
|
| As more and more of our life lands on these devices, I think
| this is the smart play. Go use another phone if you don't
| like it.
| dang wrote:
| Would you please not post in the flamewar style to HN? Your
| comments in this thread are standing out as particularly
| flamebaity. We're trying to avoid that here.
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
| echelon wrote:
| > Go use another phone if you don't like it.
|
| Half of my audience is on your favorite device. I didn't
| have to pay for them before Apple sunk their claws in.
|
| Even if there wasn't a tax, the lack of freedom is what
| really gets me. Apple built itself atop open source. They
| leveraged it to gain control over 40% of the CPUs used by
| consumers. Now we can't run code for these people.
|
| I applaud their privacy stance. But freedom to run software
| is a separate issue.
| lotsofpulp wrote:
| My experience with freedom to run software resulted in me
| spending an inordinate amount of time dealing with
| malware.
|
| If anyone wants to come up with a freedom to run software
| alternative that doesn't result in me dealing with
| malware, I'm open to it.
|
| Until then, I have to pay Apple, because I don't have
| time to deal with the alternatives currently available.
|
| Edit:
|
| >Half of my audience is on your favorite device. I didn't
| have to pay for them before Apple sunk their claws in.
|
| I might be part of that audience, but when I was
| purchasing tablets for my business, I chose Apple,
| because I didn't want to deal with malware or google
| support. I knew I could rely on Apple to not have malware
| and to provide in person support in reasonable time. I'm
| also willing to pay 30% extra for a subscription via the
| App Store since I know it's dead easy to cancel it.
|
| I am aware of Apple's injustices with their arbitrary
| rules and enforcement and how they are able to screw over
| developers. But I need to move on with life, and I need
| something that just works.
| manigandham wrote:
| Having an alternative to the App Store doesn't mean you
| have to stop using the App Store, or suffer any reduction
| in quality in the apps available on the App Store.
| Nothing changes for you in exchange for more freedom for
| others.
| lotsofpulp wrote:
| I assume a device's security is improved by being
| hampering the ability to install software. Can I rely on
| an Android device to not be tampered with or have malware
| just as much as I can an iOS device?
|
| I don't mean secure as in the NSA can't break into it. I
| mean secure as in normal people can't mess it up clicking
| bullshit links in WhatsApp messages.
| dec0dedab0de wrote:
| I'm guessing you don't use Android at all, but it is very
| difficult to accidentally install something outside of
| the play store. I would even say it is tricky to
| purposely install something outside of the play store.
| lotsofpulp wrote:
| I did from 2010 to 2015 and while I didn't have a
| problem, my dad was able to get malware on his. He
| actually was iOS from 2010 to 2014 then android 2015 to
| 2018, and then he kept messing his device up so I told
| him I'm not helping him unless he goes to iOS.
|
| All I know is I needed a 100% guarantee the device won't
| be tampered with by random people for my business and
| that other than turning it off and on, there was no tech
| support needed. To me, this meant going with Apple.
| Apocryphon wrote:
| Do you know the specific method he got malware on his
| device? Because people assume that Android malware are
| from secondary illicit app stores, and not just malware
| that was not caught on Google's inferior official Play
| Store, or from exploits at the OS level.
| lotsofpulp wrote:
| No, I didn't bother researching that. My dad very well
| might have gone in the options settings and disabled some
| stuff if the WhatsApp message instructions told him to to
| get something he wanted. He has, for some unknown reason,
| the desire to trust all the things he shouldn't, and for
| him I need a device that simply can't be touched.
|
| Especially since nowadays your financial accounts and
| everything is secured via SMS 2FA.
| Apocryphon wrote:
| Fair enough, but again the whole anti-alternate app
| stores narrative hinges on the supposition that these app
| stores will be a significant source of malware. I'm
| wondering if there are any Android security studies that
| proves or disproves that point.
| everfree wrote:
| Android has an "allow software from unknown sources"
| option buried in the settings menu. As long as you don't
| specifically go looking for that option and THEN approve
| the source of the .apk file and THEN click install on the
| system dialog, you can't accidentally install non-play-
| store software.
| spideymans wrote:
| Yeah until Facebook moves all their apps to their own App
| Store so they don't have to deal with all of Apple's
| pesky privacy rules.
| manigandham wrote:
| What privacy rules would those be? Why would iOS privacy
| settings be affected by the install method? What would be
| different from the Facebook SDK that's already installed
| in millions of apps on the App Store today?
| spideymans wrote:
| Abusing private APIs would be a major issues. Binaries
| uploaded to the App Store are inspected to ensure that
| they aren't abusing any private APIs. Facebook
| controlling their own store would allow them to
| circumvent this check. In the past, private APIs have
| been used to track users, amongst other malicious
| behaviour.
| manigandham wrote:
| What kind of inspection? The App Store review is not that
| in-depth and has frequently let through many apps that
| were leaking private details.
|
| And again, how does this affect iOS system level privacy
| settings and protections? App permissions and warnings
| don't change.
| Apocryphon wrote:
| They'd suffer massive public blowback for that, atop all
| of their PR woes that's been mounting each year since the
| 2016 U.S. elections.
| lern_too_spel wrote:
| I use Android, and the Google and Amazon Android devices
| combined have had less malware infections than iOS
| despite having vastly more users. I get to run my own
| apps on my device without telling anybody, so there is
| also more privacy. You've been hoodwinked into supporting
| a restrictive platform that benefits only Apple.
| OCASM wrote:
| Is the macOS ecosystem filled with malware?
| lotsofpulp wrote:
| I don't know what you mean by filled, but I know malware
| exists for macOS. I am not aware of malware for iOS.
| bad_user wrote:
| > _But freedom to run software is a separate issue._
|
| It isn't, because it's tied to security.
|
| I don't understand why a company, like Apple, shouldn't
| be allowed to create locked-down devices.
|
| This practice isn't new either. Locked down game consoles
| have existed since the dawn of computing. What makes this
| situation special? Don't like it, then don't buy it.
|
| Speaking of the situation at hand, Epic did in fact
| distribute Fortnite outside of Google Play. Until they
| eventually caved, because distribution via Google Play is
| more lucrative.
|
| This isn't about your freedom, they couldn't care less.
| This is about them making Apple succumb to their demands,
| while still using the App Store as a distribution
| channel.
|
| And yes, it matters what "champions" are fighting for
| your "freedoms". When the likes of Epic are your
| champion, maybe you're on the wrong side of it.
| belltaco wrote:
| Can you explain what blocking services like XCloud and
| Stadia has to do with security or privacy? Many of the
| policies are about a pure money grab.
| spideymans wrote:
| > Half of my audience is on your favorite device. I
| didn't have to pay for them before Apple sunk their claws
| in.
|
| A big part of the reason why I bought an iPhone is the
| App Store. That's because the App Store imposes rules on
| software developers, such as Facebook, which have
| consistently proven that they don't particularly care
| about privacy, security or other user-centric concerns.
| If I felt like I could trust these developers, maybe I
| wouldn't be on an iPhone. But they haven't earned my
| trust.
| manigandham wrote:
| > _" Go use another phone if you don't like it."_
|
| We, as consumers, should demand better behavior from
| trillion dollar corporations before they run our lives
| completely.
| plandis wrote:
| Apple doesn't even have 50% of the smartphone market.
|
| It sounds like you're an App developer so perhaps it would be
| more honest to just explicitly state that you want to make
| more money rather than claim your on the verge of tears?
| bzb5 wrote:
| > Like, physically holding back tears. Serious.
|
| Time to step away from the computer, miss.
|
| Regarding the rest of your comment: sorry to say this but the
| internet is freer now than 10 years ago. More people are
| online talking and collaborating with each other in new and
| more interesting ways. There's more and better access to
| culture more than there's ever been.
| exBarrelSpoiler wrote:
| You just contradicted yourself
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24569102
| bzb5 wrote:
| I said freer, not completely free.
|
| And by free I mean the amount of people who currently use
| for example WhatsApp, which allows us to freely
| communicate with others. Even my mother is using it! Ten
| years ago she hadn't touched any kind of tech.
| plandis wrote:
| Apple doesn't even have 50% of the smartphone market.
|
| It sounds like you're an App developer so perhaps it would be
| more honest to just explicitly state that you want to make
| more money rather than claim youre on the verge of tears?
| echelon wrote:
| > Apple doesn't even have 50% of the smartphone market.
|
| It looks like they command between 33% and 46% of sales in
| the US per quarter. [1]
|
| That's a lot of people. Many of them use their iPhone as
| their only computer.
|
| > It sounds like you're an App developer so perhaps it
| would be more honest to just explicitly state that you want
| to make more money
|
| I want freedom back.
|
| I have projects that make zero money that I want to run. I
| also don't want to have to have an Apple SDK license or
| write it in their chosen technology or be required to
| follow their stringent UI guidelines because my audience is
| niche and doesn't care about that. My time on this earth is
| too limited to jump through more hoops.
|
| I also don't want to have my app deleted because I'm
| protesting them.
|
| Dealing with Apple is like living under an authoritarian
| regime. We don't have any choice but to deal with them
| because of the power they wield.
|
| [1] https://www.statista.com/statistics/620805/smartphone-
| sales-...
| plandis wrote:
| > Dealing with Apple is like living under an
| authoritarian regime. We don't have any choice but to
| deal with them because of the power they wield.
|
| I'm not sure I'm following. You are being forced to
| develop for Apple devices against your will?
| Apocryphon wrote:
| Given that the majority of paying customers are on iOS,
| it's certainly a strong incentive for app developers to
| target that platform.
| katbyte wrote:
| The problem is when you let companies run free they do bad
| things. There are bad actors out there and apples wall garden
| keeps them at bay and in check. I LIKE not having to worry
| about what I install from the App Store. Adding random apks
| or even downloading anything from the play store can
| legitimately be unsafe.
|
| At that I don't trust companies with credit cards and
| subscriptions - I trust apple. I get an email for every
| renewal, but every charge, and cancelling is easy. Other
| stores and companies do not do that because letting you know
| means less money for then.
| dylan-m wrote:
| > Adding random apks or even downloading anything from the
| play store can legitimately be unsafe.
|
| It has been unsafe, but Android was designed with this in
| mind and is continually improving its security model. For
| instance, Android 11 added a regular check-in for
| permissions you have granted to apps and tightened a bunch
| of other loose ends like background location access.
|
| (In general, barring unpatched security vulnerabilities,
| it's about as unsafe as blindly clicking things in your web
| browser, or believing the weird robot that calls you every
| day really should know your bank account number. You can
| try to help this using technology, but it is not a
| technology problem).
|
| Apple does the same kind of work all the time, tightening
| sandboxes and patching vulnerabilities, but they always
| have the crutch of app reviews to fall back on. But it is
| completely wrong to believe that crutch is the thing
| between iOS as a reliable platform and iOS as a malware-
| ridden hellscape. That's what Apple wants you to think, but
| their developers are not actually that stupid.
|
| For evidence on how you can build a solid, reasonably
| secure platform without this kind of crutch, you might
| consider Linux on servers, desktop MacOS, modern desktop
| Linux (particularly stuff like Fedora Silverblue), even
| modern Windows. This is not a solved problem by any means,
| but it's solved enough that giving up, closing the gate and
| throwing away the key is completely counter-productive.
| mola wrote:
| What is wrong is that somehow we believe that if you set up a
| system where the end goal is growth _by any means necessary
| unless explicitly disallowed by law_ is the moral thing to do
| it 'll turn out any different.
| fhood wrote:
| 1. I could be wrong, but I do not consider Apple to have a
| "monopoly" here due to the quality and availability of
| Android devices.
|
| > I want a world where we're free to install whatever we want
| on our devices or distribute our hard work to others without
| having to implement it 5 different ways.
|
| That's lovely and all, but that has never existed? I don't
| understand how you would even accomplish this.
|
| > I don't want to be taxed by entities worth trillions.
| Before they stood up the walls, I could reach all the people
| I wanted for free. Now they've turned us into poor serfs.
|
| What does this even mean?! You could never reach "all the
| people" for free?
|
| > he last bastion, the web, is even under attack...
|
| Fair
|
| > These rent-seeking companies took all of the goodwill and
| amazing technology we developed in the open
|
| Who is "we"? Are we including the department of defense in
| "we"? Bell labs?
|
| If you have a point, make your point. Tell me what
| specifically you take issue with in the original comment.
| user5994461 wrote:
| For reference, all of these practices are abusive and will void
| the subscription contract in civil law (Europe). Ask for a
| refund and perform a charge back if they don't refund.
|
| I wrote a detailed article about it, what every developer
| should know about software subscriptions and civil law:
| https://thehftguy.com/2020/09/08/what-every-developer-should...
| joshstrange wrote:
| > For reference, all of these practices are abusive and will
| void the subscription contract in civil law (Europe). Ask for
| a refund and perform a charge back if they don't refund.
|
| Do you think that really matters to or is realistic for the
| average non-technical user? Heck even as technical user I
| don't want to deal with that crap, I want 1 click unsubscribe
| which I get through App Store subscriptions.
| user5994461 wrote:
| I think it matters that the law is on the side of the
| consumer, least the big company would sue the customer for
| charge back and try to take over their home as damages.
| temp667 wrote:
| Good lord, when you say someone has to go through a civil law
| litigation (in the US this is a nightmare) to just do a basic
| unsubscribe - you AGAIN demonstrate why the app store is
| popular.
|
| Epic doesn't allow a civil law process, they force
| arbitration anyways. So the deck is stacked against you
| user5994461 wrote:
| I'm speaking toward Europeans of course, the US does not
| operate under civil law.
|
| Epic doesn't get to set the law, the country where the
| consumer resides does. France for example operates under
| civil law and arbitration clauses are void (in consumer
| contracts not in B2B).
|
| Users should ask for refund and charge back if they can't
| get a refund, preferably keeping a paper trail of the
| requests. The legal details are only relevant if one goes
| to litigation (this sadly happens regularly for example
| with children bankrupting their parents with in-game
| purchases).
| izacus wrote:
| Interesting how there's so many posts here attacking the
| companies behind the action (ad hominem style) by specifying
| actions that have nothing to do with the abuses Apple and
| AppStore do.
|
| Is this targeted?
| untog wrote:
| If you're asking "is it possible for multiple people to be so
| annoyed by the business practises of tech giants that they
| complain about it online even when not directly related to
| the topic at hand"... yeah, yeah it is. No need to look for a
| conspiracy here.
| temp667 wrote:
| I spent months dealing with myheritages uncancelable auto-
| renewal. Others make you cancel 30 days in advance, but not
| more than 90 days in advance, with a phone call that runs
| you through dumb menus
|
| At some point you have a life, kids, wife, etc and playing
| these games is not worth it. Apple markets to those of us
| who even though tech savvey don't want to play the game
| some of these big scammer / microtransaction folks want to
| play.
| kevincox wrote:
| It seems that the post is highlighting how the subscription
| and refund options of these companies provide a far worse
| experience than the Apple App Store which is a legitimate
| concern for why providing a work around can lead to worse
| user experiences if these companies provide their app via a
| different chancel that doesn't enforce certain UX
| requirements.
|
| For that reason the comment does seem helpful and relevant.
| temp667 wrote:
| Is it the job of the DOJ to help scammers make money? Or can
| anti-trust be about some type of consumer protection?
|
| Apple has carved out a small but lucrative area which is
| basically pretty consumer attentive. I think google assistant
| is way better, but I just like having a hassle free
| experience with apple too much to switch for what might be a
| better spec'ed product. I get my phone for 3 years, get
| applecare+ on it, and away I go. I've actually used AppleCare
| once, I was in and out in something like 15 minutes with a
| new phone. I've had apple remind me to cancel app
| subscriptions when I delete an app if I won't be re-
| installing! You get a notice before renewals on
| subscriptions, the terms are always clear and in dollars,
| consistent interface to cancel and get terms (ie, no FREE 1
| month (and then fine print - $50/month after)).
|
| The irony is that these are the sleezeballs - the EXACT folks
| that make doing subscriptions online so annoying and
| illustrate what apple is trying to create with their platform
| - TRUST.
|
| They make games for Xbox - I'm sure microsoft wants a cut.
| Playstation I'm sure does the same.
|
| This has everything to do with the apple eco-system from the
| consumer standpoint. I realize the issue here is that folks
| like tinder can't run whatever scam they want on the apple
| platform. Why is this a crime again?
|
| Don't like it? There are tons of other phones out there,
| apple doesn't have close to a monopoly in smartphone sales.
| [deleted]
| ilikehurdles wrote:
| > Please don't post insinuations about astroturfing,
| shilling, brigading, foreign agents and the like. It degrades
| discussion and is usually mistaken. If you're worried about
| abuse, email hn@ycombinator.com and we'll look at the data.
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
|
| I think Epic Games, at least, is an all-around horrific
| company, and in this case has intentionally exploited the App
| Store to start a specious lawsuit.
| kemiller wrote:
| No... many people actually appreciate the walled garden as
| consumers.
| eertami wrote:
| Sure, but it's of course surprising such people would be
| present on HN.
| DevKoala wrote:
| Why? As a developer it sounds like a nightmare, but as a
| costumer, I like it. It makes for a great experience.
| orangecat wrote:
| I just find it shortsighted; you're getting immediate
| convenience at the expense of longer term innovation and
| freedom. As I keep saying, if Microsoft had the power in
| 1990 that people want Apple to have today, the web
| wouldn't exist because Mosaic and Netscape would have
| been banned.
| DevKoala wrote:
| I'd prefer it if Microsoft, Google, Samsung, and other
| device makers released products that were on par with
| Apple's. We are in this situation because Apple release
| better products than the competition. As a costumer, I
| want better products.
| stefano wrote:
| Because it's as far as you can go from being a "Hacker".
| AlexandrB wrote:
| As a signifier of technological anti-establishment
| thinking I think that label is pretty meaningless at this
| point.
|
| Most of the "Hackers" of my generation grew up to either
| vacuum up user data without their consent, micro-target
| advertising (including political propaganda), or fund
| those that do the above two things.
| DevKoala wrote:
| But I am a customer too. For example, a couple months ago
| an, ad got my mom to install an app without her consent.
| She said she could not escape the page until she clicked
| okay, and she wasn't aware the app had installed at all.
| I noticed because I started receiving charges for a
| subscription to the app services. A simple chat with
| Apple support granted me a reimbursement. As a customer,
| Apple treats me well. I understand where tons of
| developers are coming from, but as a customer I haven't
| had a better experience.
| ilikehurdles wrote:
| People here are consumers too. To give my anecdata:
|
| I used to subscribe to the NYT and made the mistake of
| not subscribing using Apple's subscriptions mechanism.
| When I wanted to cancel for a while, I had to go through
| a whole spiel with their sales rep to get them to honor
| my cancellation. With other subscription services on
| Apple (like many the TV streaming subscriptions)
| cancelling is a couple of standard clicks and you're
| done. No questions asked. I've cancelled and re-
| subscribed to thing like HBO multiple times because of
| it, but I will never be resubscribing to the NYT again.
|
| I don't want 90 different ways to cancel 90 different
| subscriptions from 90 different stores for 90 different
| apps on my phone, so yeah I do appreciate having one
| place to do it, and I wish it were harder for developers
| to skirt the App Store infrastructure to push their own
| consumer-hostile options.
| jpambrun wrote:
| Allowing other stores doesn't mean you _have_ to use them.
| You could still have your curated experience on the Apple
| store. Why do you want to impose your views on others?
| abc-xyz wrote:
| Why are you, tech-savvy users, forcing Apple to allow
| third-party app stores/installations, which would no
| doubt lead to malware like we see on Windows, Macs, and
| Android?
|
| I and my software friends/colleagues might be capable of
| avoiding this malware (assuming you don't consider Zoom
| and such to be malware), but my family and everyone else
| I know are not. I suspect 70+% of the user base could
| easily be tricked into installing malware that would spam
| them with sex notifications, hijack their search engine,
| etc.
| ghostwriter wrote:
| Who is imposing views in this situation? You _don 't have
| to_ use Apple devices as your platform either. Most
| likely you use it because you benefit from it. Especially
| these companies that get huge profits from it. The
| platform was provided to them under certain conditions
| that they are free to reject at any moment and to walk
| away if they find that they will benefit more from that
| decision.
| granzymes wrote:
| How much do you want to bet that Epic and Spotify would
| pull their apps from the App Store or limit the features
| of their apps on the App Store in order to force people
| to their preferred platform?
|
| This isn't even hypothetical. Spotify already refuses to
| add features to the Apple Watch.
| izacus wrote:
| So "then you don't have to use them" right? To turn the
| Apple argument against your point? You can use a nicely
| curated app that's safe for you.
| DevKoala wrote:
| No, the argument of the poster you are replying to is
| that these companies are competing and rooting for one or
| another doesn't benefit anybody, developers or costumers.
| pb7 wrote:
| Yes, it _does_ mean that you have to use them (if you
| already do). If you 're a user of Spotify or Tinder and
| they pull out of the App Store, you now have to follow
| whatever arbitrary consumer-hostile decisions that will
| make them the most money since there's no one to tell
| them otherwise. I like that they have to follow the
| strict rules in the App Store because I know they want
| that sweet sweet App Store money and won't pull out
| unless there's a less strict option. It's like giving
| auto manufacturers a choice to either sell via
| dealerships that follow EPA laws or those that don't.
| Gee, I wonder which one they will go with given the
| choice?
| jpambrun wrote:
| Forcing you to use 3rd party store for few apps is
| somehow worst than forcing everyone to use the Apple
| store for all apps?
|
| This discussion is moot. Apple only has to lower it's cut
| to cost + a reasonable markup instead of abusing it's
| position to charge 30%. Then everybody can be happy.
| pb7 wrote:
| It's not going to be a few apps and they might not even
| be a few stores. It's going to be a bunch of stores with
| varying rules and conditions and bars for quality and
| selection of apps. I'm not interested in that because I
| don't trust other companies to do the right thing. If
| you're interested in that, you can use Android. No one is
| forcing you to use iOS.
|
| Also, there is no reason to believe any percentage is too
| high or too low. 30% is what Apple has charged since day
| 1 when it had no position whatsoever. You will need to
| explain exactly at which point in time 30% became
| problematic.
| jpambrun wrote:
| I think it's getting obvious that the situation is
| untenable. If it's not the US courts, some other court
| will likely enact changes.
|
| In the end it doesn't matter how Apple and Google got to
| this duopoly position of power, if it was fair or of they
| had to work hard. The fact that matters is where they are
| now.
| DevKoala wrote:
| Yes, I don't want to create one more logging that gives
| up my IP address tied to my payment information.
| katbyte wrote:
| Because my parents or none tech friends would use them
| and then come to me when their phones fucked
| sosborn wrote:
| You don't have to use Apple. You could still have your
| non-curated experience with Android. Why do you want to
| impose your view on others?
| jpambrun wrote:
| That's dishonest. The situation is identical on Android.
| Yes. You can "technically" sideload apps, but there is so
| many hoops to go through that you really can't distribute
| your application this way.
| sidibe wrote:
| > there is so many hoops to go through that you really
| can't distribute your application this way
|
| One hoop. Turn on one setting, from there it's just
| clicking to download an apk and approving the dialog box.
|
| The real reason it's hard to distribute your application
| outside of Play store is discovery.
| jpambrun wrote:
| There is friction with updates as well. But we don't have
| to argue since even a giant such as Epic didn't manage to
| do it with the fortnight franchise..
| systemvoltage wrote:
| Showing how App Store is consumer centric - I think that's
| important to put in the context where Apple has to keep a
| tight grip or else these savage businesses would devour the
| customer's privacy in instant and exploit their psyche with
| tricks to milk as much money as they can.
|
| I am glad Apple is gatekeeping.
| manigandham wrote:
| Native apps have always been major privacy leaks with
| little oversight while Apple has spent most of the effort
| on Safari. The app store doesn't change that fact.
| m000 wrote:
| This is like claiming that you're glad when a TSA agent
| gropes you, because that keeps the savage terrorists out.
|
| In both cases, it is a security theatre which is abused for
| reasons not related to security.
| plandis wrote:
| You don't think it's valid to critique the bad actions that
| the App Store generally protects (non tech savvy) consumers
| from?
| fhood wrote:
| Not trying to take a side here, but Epic especially is not
| the company I want leading the charge here. I am vehemently
| opposed to their (and Tencent's) primary business model.
|
| Edit: It isn't like there aren't policies that Apple has in
| place that should be pushed back against. But, Epic seems to
| have zero qualms about targeting _children_ misleading and
| manipulative in game transactions, and I think that Epic
| having their way is far more nightmarish than Apple 's
| equivalent, based on my current understanding of the two
| companies business models.
| kickopotomus wrote:
| If you don't like Epic, then aren't they exactly who you
| want to take part in what will likely be a long and
| economically painful legal battle?
|
| I'm not a fan either but indie developers don't have the
| resources necessary to take Apple to court and win.
| return1 wrote:
| That s pure whataboutsm. Nothing stops apple from vetting apps
| without charging an extortionate 30% tax. They have plenty of
| money to do that. Or do you imply that apple's tax deters
| scammers? Then , how are these companies accepted in the app
| store?
| ghostwriter wrote:
| I was told in other threads that taxes, especially if they
| are progressive, are a good thing and that they help the
| society and the government to function, and that we pay them
| because we receive services in exchange, and that it doesn't
| matter how satisfied we are with those services. If you call
| Apple charges taxes, be consistent and respect them as any
| other tax in your life. Or denounce all of them. Or stop
| calling them taxes.
| return1 wrote:
| Taxation is theft.
|
| That said, i dont see how paying the apple tax for the apps
| i buy is benefiting me at all, since i'm in Europe.
| ghostwriter wrote:
| > That said, i dont see how paying the apple tax for the
| apps i buy is benefiting me at all, since i'm in Europe.
|
| Do you see how VAT benefits you when you pay it when
| buying almost any product/service (including the ones
| from Apple) in your country?
|
| I agree with your taxation stance though, because taxes
| are not voluntary. AppStore is, I can either pay for it
| and use it, or jailbreak it and use it, or walk away to
| open platforms and enjoy their freedom. And if there
| isn't one, I am free to organise with others and to build
| my own.
|
| Besides, Apple doesn't want you to pay for it, it wants
| to get a fee from the developers who use the platform to
| profit from it. It's either developers who consciously
| put this burden of their fees on your shoulders, or
| there's a ridiculous law in place that doesn't allow the
| developers to put different price tags on different
| platforms, which results in higher prices for end users.
| koheripbal wrote:
| You'd be hard pressed to find a company that is popular and
| doesnt have accusations, haters, and lawsuits for something or
| other.
|
| It's part of running a complex large business.
| ksk wrote:
| Anything you disagree with here? https://appfairness.org/our-
| vision/
| disposekinetics wrote:
| #6, I love how little Apple allows companies to contact me.
| plandis wrote:
| > No developer should be required to use an app store
| exclusively, or to use ancillary services of the app store
| owner, including payment systems, or to accept other
| supplementary obligations in order to have access to the
| app store.
|
| Apple doesn't have a monopoly here they don't even have 50%
| marketshare. Nobody forces developers to develop apps for
| Apple devices, that's a choice that was made. Why should
| Apples rights over its own IP get trumped by others?
|
| I find it hard to see as a win for consumers based on the
| scummy practices of the companies in this advocacy group.
| Comparatively consumers are much better with Apples
| requirements from my perspective.
|
| So given that there is potential for significant harm AND
| developers have a choice of platforms to develop for why
| should Apples rights be taken away?
|
| > No developer should be blocked from the platform or
| discriminated against based on a developer's business
| model, how it delivers content and services, or whether it
| competes in any way with the app store owner.
|
| So if I sell an app that does something like only sells to
| white people Apple shouldn't be allowed to step in even
| though the negative press is likely to harm their brand
| image?
|
| > Every developer should have timely access to the same
| interoperability interfaces and technical information as
| the app store owner makes available to its own developers.
|
| Apple should be forced to work on behalf of other companies
| with no benefit for them?
|
| > Every developer should always have access to app stores
| as long as its app meets fair, objective and
| nondiscriminatory standards for security, privacy, quality,
| content, and digital safety.
|
| Is this not true today? If it's not Apple setting those
| standards it's surely some other biased entity right? How
| is one better than the other?
|
| > A developer's data should not be used to compete with the
| developer.
|
| This seems fair.
|
| > Every developer should always have the right to
| communicate directly with its users through its app for
| legitimate business purposes.
|
| Why does communicate mean in this instance? I can see how
| the definition of communicate could be exploited to allow
| apps to override permission defaults set by Apple. For
| example perhaps you get an add and the app owner things
| it's valid to start the microphone so the communication
| channel can be opened? Perhaps I want to communicate based
| on location? Should I be allowed to access GPS information
| without permissions?
|
| > No app store owner or its platform should engage in self-
| preferencing its own apps or services, or interfere with
| users' choice of preferences or defaults.
|
| Why? It's their platform. Developers are free to develop
| their own phone / OS, right?
|
| > No developer should be required to pay unfair,
| unreasonable or discriminatory fees or revenue shares, nor
| be required to sell within its app anything it doesn't wish
| to sell, as a condition to gain access to the app store.
|
| Apple would surely say developers do not pay an unfair or
| unreasonable amount. Who sets this standard?
|
| > No app store owner should prohibit third parties from
| offering competing app stores on the app store owner's
| platform, or discourage developers or consumers from using
| them.
|
| Why? If your App Store bricks an iPhone, Apple shouldn't be
| able to prevent that from being installed on their devices?
|
| > All app stores will be transparent about their rules and
| policies and opportunities for promotion and marketing,
| apply these consistently and objectively, provide notice of
| changes, and make available a quick, simple and fair
| process to resolve disputes.
|
| Transparent is subjective. I don't see how this won't
| result in the same types of TOS that people without legal
| degrees are not equipped to parse/understand.
| ksk wrote:
| >I find it hard to see as a win for consumers based on
| the scummy practices of the companies in this advocacy
| group. Comparatively consumers are much better with
| Apples requirements from my perspective.
|
| Its a clear win for users and developers because of
| competition in stores. Different stores will have
| different overheads and operating costs and can offer
| different discounts to both users and developers. Apple's
| brutal monopoly prevents that.
|
| >So given that there is potential for significant harm
| AND developers have a choice of platforms to develop for
| why should Apples rights be taken away?
|
| There is harm being doing today by Apple to users and
| developers. We need to undo that.
|
| >So if I sell an app that does something like only sells
| to white people Apple shouldn't be allowed to step in
| even though the negative press is likely to harm their
| brand image?
|
| That went straight over my head, sorry. I didn't
| understand what your point was..
|
| >Apple should be forced to work on behalf of other
| companies with no benefit for them?
|
| Apple keeps their own APIs secret, or rather,
| artificially bans Apps from using them. This is merely
| leveling the playing field to allow other app stores to
| operate.
|
| >Is this not true today? If it's not Apple setting those
| standards it's surely some other biased entity right? How
| is one better than the other?
|
| Multiple app-stores will ensure competition.
|
| >Why? It's their platform. Developers are free to develop
| their own phone / OS, right?
|
| I don't want Windows to ban Chrome or Firefox or
| arbitrarily block people from accessing websites either.
| "Its their platform" so they get to abuse their position
| of power is not a winning argument for me anyway. Clearly
| our views differ on this.
|
| >Apple would surely say developers do not pay an unfair
| or unreasonable amount. Who sets this standard?
|
| We set a fair income tax through the political process
| (however flawed) that allows stakeholders to participate.
| No system is perfect and we can only strive to improve
| the existing one. Right now, its Apple's dictatorial
| approach that is setting the rules. I'm glad there is a
| pushback.
|
| >Why? If your App Store bricks an iPhone, Apple shouldn't
| be able to prevent that from being installed on their
| devices?
|
| That is ludicrous. A madman could use a knife to kill you
| so lets ban knifes?! If we have to be mature and rational
| about it, we need to evaluate things in a much more
| nuanced fashion.
|
| >Transparent is subjective. I don't see how this won't
| result in the same types of TOS that people without legal
| degrees are not equipped to parse/understand.
|
| Everything is subjective here. Apple's robbing of 30% of
| sales needs to end.
| jariel wrote:
| This is completely shameful gaslighting.
|
| All of Epics and Spotify's supposed 'shenanigans' are 100%
| endorsed by Apple, so your argument is not even an argument.
|
| Did Apple's 'moral App store' stop any of your claimed
| activity?
|
| No?
|
| So what's your point?
|
| I just can't believe individual citizens would be arbitrary
| corporate shills for a monopoly.
|
| A lot more vendors need to get together to lobby against anti-
| competitive practices.
| jayd16 wrote:
| If the app store is so great just open up the platform. People
| will choose to use Apple's great store.
| devwastaken wrote:
| Monopalies become large enough that their existence threatens
| capitalism itself by controlling the free market through Ill
| means. Markets are comprised of people, business, and money.
| when a market is large enough People have a right to conduct
| their business unduly infringed by it's creator or controller.
| Anything else is a fascist market that is entirely against
| capitalism, and therefore should not exist in a free world.
|
| You may like your padded walls and taking authority, but the
| market does not belong to you. It belongs to the opportunity of
| business.
| ksk wrote:
| What do you disagree with on this page?
|
| https://appfairness.org/our-vision/
| crazygringo wrote:
| > _this illustrates WHY the app store is so popular_
|
| No it doesn't. The app store is "popular" because Apple users
| don't have a choice. It's "popular" because they're forced to
| use it.
|
| I'm neither defending it or criticizing it... but let's not
| pretend like consumers are _choosing_ the app store.
|
| Users in general are choosing Apple vs Android _primarily_ for
| reasons that have nothing to do with an app store (i.e.
| hardware, support, iMessage, branding, etc.) and then simply
| use whatever app store they 're forced to.
| 8ytecoder wrote:
| Speak for yourself. I try to pay everything I can via the App
| Store subscriptions precisely because it's easier to cancel.
| I made the mistake of subscribing to nytimes and I have to
| call them to cancel. That's a major brand making me do this.
| hamilyon2 wrote:
| What a sad, truly medieval serf position are you living in.
| Paying one lord so that he protects you from other lords
| that have full power to rob you.
|
| That is wrong, I can't state how wrong is that.
|
| No commercial entity dares to charge my bank account in my
| country without my explicit approval. Actually, I believe
| they cannot.
| Razengan wrote:
| > _Apple users don 't have a choice. It's "popular" because
| they're forced to use it._
|
| Do you have a minute to talk about our Lord and Savior,
| Android?
|
| People _do_ choose iPhones or Androids based on what apps
| they know they can run.
| notsureaboutpg wrote:
| Very few people do this. most popular apps have a version
| on both stores.
| notsureaboutpg wrote:
| Yep, if you spent any time with non-technical users you'd
| know a good amount of them pick Apple because they want their
| messages to show up as blue in their friends' iMessage and
| not green. They have no idea how Match.com subscriptions work
| and don't care about Spotify ripping off musicians.
| granzymes wrote:
| No the parent is right, I manage as many subscriptions as
| possible through Apple and have no desire to move to another
| platform until they provide the same policy guarantees.
| joshstrange wrote:
| > No it doesn't. The app store is "popular" because Apple
| users don't have a choice. It's "popular" because they're
| forced to use it.
|
| I spend WAY more on apps in the App Store as well as
| subscriptions because I know I'm not going to get screwed and
| I can easily throw a few dollars to a company without having
| to check to make sure they aren't scummy. I can cancel my
| subscriptions extremely easily and I get to keep my access
| through the current paid period. I have used both Play and
| the App Store and I greatly prefer the App Store over the
| Play store, it, along with what I perceive as higher quality
| apps in the store, is absolutely a deciding factor in both my
| choice of iOS and my recommendation to friends/family.
| sercand wrote:
| I subscribed and purchased lots of random apps through App
| Store because it is easy and I know that I can easily cancel
| my subscription or refund my money. So far, I only subscribed
| to Netflix and Sketch from a website. I can easily say that I
| threw more of my money to random apps on AppStore.
|
| If a subscription service would use Apple Pay and I can
| cancel inside Apple Pay by deactivating the virtual card, I
| may subscribe these services in or out iPhone. But Apple pay
| is not available on everywhere.
| mhh__ wrote:
| This illustrates why the app store is popular, despite all of
| these companies rolling in money?
|
| TRAIN WRECK, really?
| Apocryphon wrote:
| Okay, so what's wrong with Basecamp, Tile, or Protonmail?
| What's nefarious about Prepear?
| manigandham wrote:
| The standards are already a train wreck, that's the entire
| issue, along with consumers not having any other choice in how
| they install apps so popularity can't be measured in the first
| place.
|
| Also Apple has plenty of supply chain problems and anti-
| consumer practices that equal and exceed those other issues you
| named.
| bluecalm wrote:
| I am sorry but this is nonsense. App store is "popular" because
| it's the only option. We can try to imagine if it would still
| be popular with cheaper competition but right now there is one
| reason for its popularity: there is nothing else.
|
| If trust is indeed lost than people will just use Apple app
| store knowing full well other ones are unsafe/offer worse
| experience.
| itg wrote:
| It boggles my mind that there are people rooting for Apple to
| "win" here. Whatever you think of Epic, Spotify, etc, the changes
| they propose would be a win for customers to use the devices the
| way they want to. If you only want to download apps from Apple's
| approved app store, they are not taking that away from you.
| havelhovel wrote:
| Not everyone values having an open device. Being my family and
| friends' on-call tech support tells me this would in fact be a
| negative.
| 52-6F-62 wrote:
| I bought an Apple phone specifically because it's not open.
|
| I think we should be allowed to have that as much as we're
| allowed to make a completely open and modular device. I like
| having the choice to have a locked down, simplistic device. The
| fewer openings, the better for me there.
| shmerl wrote:
| They should mandate that Apple must allow alternative stores.
| That will completely solve this problem and many other nasty
| problems Apple is causing.
| capableweb wrote:
| Totally off-topic but worth mentioning. If you click on the
| "Cookie Policy" link in the footer, it takes you to the right
| page, but on that page it's still asking for consent before I can
| actually read the policy. So many websites gets something so
| simple wrong, even Epic, Spotify and Tinder. Where are we going
| really?
| dasb wrote:
| The root of this problem is that iPhones don't allow their owners
| to install software without jailbreaking their devices.
|
| Any real solution must be pointed at fixing that problem, either
| convincing people to stop buying Apple devices or beating Apple
| in the trade war they started.
| Ensorceled wrote:
| I bought iPhones for my parents precisely because they can't be
| tricked into installing software that hasn't been vetted by at
| least Apple and the software increasingly can't track them.
|
| I paid a premium for that peace of mind.
| tessela wrote:
| from https://developer.apple.com/support/enrollment/
|
| Do I need to enroll to install apps on a device? No. You can
| install apps on a device for free with Xcode. You'll only need to
| enroll if you'd like to distribute apps, access beta software,
| and integrate with capabilities such as Siri, Apple Pay, and
| iCloud.
|
| So, Epic, Spotify and Tinder can make their stores, they just
| need to automate the process.
| saurik wrote:
| You are limited to three total apps installed for free with
| Xcode, they expire every seven days, have limited API surface
| access (you can't build a VPN app, for example), and among the
| things you can't integrate with is push notifications, which is
| one of the key reasons people build apps in the first place. So
| uhhh... thanks for playing, but that isn't helpful.
| poorman wrote:
| Inside the article:
|
| > Other founding members include ProtonMail email service owner
| Proton Technologies AG, trade group News Media Europe and
| project-management software maker Basecamp LLC.
|
| Link to the advocacy group page: https://appfairness.org/
| Razengan wrote:
| Can users and developers who are in favor of keeping the App
| Store as is form an advocacy group too?
|
| I've been collecting a list of arguments in favor of maintaining
| the status quo on iOS and I've yet to see anyone offer a good
| solution to these:
|
| ---- The problems with letting all apps advertise external
| payment systems:
|
| * Someone may publish a free app to avoid paying anything to
| Apple, and then charge users [an asston of] money to ""unlock""
| via an alternate payment system.
|
| * Users may not be able to see a list of all in-app purchases
| (and their guaranteed prices) as they can on the App Store,
| without downloading the app.
|
| * Sharing your payment details and other information with
| multiple entities, and having to continually trust each of them
| (e.g. to not abuse or leak).
|
| * Confused users may clog up Apple's customer support with
| complaints related to third-party payment systems.
|
| * Angry users may demand Apple to offer refunds for shit that was
| paid for via third-party payment systems.
|
| ---- The problems with allowing third-party app stores on iOS:
|
| * How will iOS sandboxing be enforced for apps delivered via
| third-party stores? Will those apps still have to be submitted to
| and signed by Apple?
|
| * Store apps would need the privilege to write binaries on your
| iPhone. How will that privilege be regulated to prevent abuse?
| e.g. what happens if a store starts writing malware?
|
| * Users may sometimes have to wait longer for an app to update on
| one store than on others (as already happens on Steam vs GoG).
|
| * Developers would no longer be assured that they will have
| access to literally all the users that iOS has, by publishing on
| just one store.
|
| * You would have to submit to each store, wait for approval on
| each of them, update for each of them... to come close to the
| userbase that you can currently access by just publishing once on
| the App Store.
|
| * Developers will no longer all play by the same rules. One store
| may allow some content while another may prohibit it.
|
| * Controversial content like porn may still ultimately be bound
| by Apple's ruling on such matters, rendering moot the freedom of
| third-party stores in what kind of apps they may offer.
|
| * iOS Parental Control and Screen Time restrictions may be
| ineffective on other stores (and browsers too if third-party
| rendering engines were allowed).
|
| * If an app or game is exclusive to a store that a user isn't
| already using, they would have to create a new account and
| maintain an additional app just to access that one exclusive.
|
| * Not all stores may be compatible with the iOS backup and
| restore system, or the APIs for app-thinning and on-demand
| resources.
|
| ----
|
| To resolve many of those issues, Apple would have to ultimately
| step in anyway.
|
| The need for third-party stores is really not that great to
| offset the advantages offered by the current system.
| ketzu wrote:
| > One store may allow some content while another may prohibit
| it.
|
| Yes, that's a good thing.
|
| > How will iOS sandboxing be enforced for apps delivered via
| third-party stores?
|
| This seems like a non-problem. Sandboxing is a local OS
| feature.
|
| > e.g. what happens if a store starts writing malware?
|
| The same thing that happens when the apple and google app
| stores do that. Reputation loss, or more likely: Nothing.
|
| > How will that privilege be regulated to prevent abuse?
|
| Why does it have to be? Why can't the used give an app the
| permission to act as an app store and install apps? This
| permission exists in android but can only be granted by the
| phone vendor (or google)
|
| > Controversial content like porn may still ultimately be bound
| by Apple's ruling on such matters, rendering moot the freedom
| of third-party stores in what kind of apps they may offer.
|
| It shouldn't be.
|
| > iOS Parental Control and Screen Time restrictions may be
| ineffective on other stores (and browsers too if third-party
| rendering engines were allowed).
|
| How so? Especially screen time restrictions is a non-issue for
| different stores. How is the rendering engine for a browser the
| restricting factor for content control?
|
| All other points are questions of convenience.
|
| Also many of these problems have the opposite too:
|
| * What about content that is deemed inappropriate by apple, but
| users don't share that value judgement? * What about web
| features that are not implemented by safari, but users might
| want? * What about apps that are not implemented for iOS
| because the developers don't want to or can not abide by apples
| rules or got removed by apple for no clear reason?
| 7786655 wrote:
| >Someone may publish a free app to avoid paying anything to
| Apple, and then charge users [an asston of] money to ""unlock""
| via an alternate payment system.
|
| So don't use that app.
|
| >Users may not be able to see a list of all in-app purchases
| (and their guaranteed prices) as they can on the App Store,
| without downloading the app.
|
| If a store is missing a feature you want, you can simply choose
| not to use it.
|
| >Sharing your payment details and other information with
| multiple entities, and having to continually trust each of them
| (e.g. to not abuse or leak).
|
| This is a real problem, but solving it with an app store
| monopoly is a case of the cure being worse than the disease.
| Besides, I think the risks of sharing you credit card number
| are wildly overstated. You can issue a chargeback on any
| transaction, and reverse fraudulent purchases.
|
| >Confused users may clog up Apple's customer support with
| complaints related to third-party payment systems.
|
| Confused users already have enough complaints to clog up
| Apple's customer support with. Apple can just tell them to
| contact the third party's support.
|
| >Angry users may demand Apple to offer refunds for shit that
| was paid for via third-party payment systems.
|
| And Apple may tell them no. They're adults, the made a
| decision, now they have to live with the consequences.
|
| >How will iOS sandboxing be enforced for apps delivered via
| third-party stores? Will those apps still have to be submitted
| to and signed by Apple?
|
| That's not how sandboxing works.
|
| >Store apps would need the privilege to write binaries on your
| iPhone. How will that privilege be regulated to prevent abuse?
| e.g. what happens if a store starts writing malware?
|
| Malware is software that acts against the interests of the
| user. Nobody can know what the user wants except the user
| themself, so it must be the user's responsibility to install
| only the apps that they want on their device. This is already
| the current situation, since malware exists on the Apple App
| Store.
|
| It's worth noting the although I'm technically on Epic's side
| here, I don't trust Epic and I would not install any of their
| software on one of my computers.
|
| >Users may sometimes have to wait longer for an app to update
| on one store than on others (as already happens on Steam vs
| GoG).
|
| Sometimes there are good reasons for this. For example, F-Droid
| users usually have to wait longer for updates than Google Play
| users, since F-Droid has a much more thorough review process. I
| think it's worth waiting longer so that I know the app hasn't
| introduces anti-features with its updates. Other people might
| disagree, and prefer getting updates as fast as possible.
| That's fine, Android allows multiple app stores so we can both
| get what we want.
|
| I think this is also an interesting point: We've talked a lot
| about users who think the Apple App Store's rules are too
| strict but what about the users who think they aren't strict
| enough?
|
| >Developers would no longer be assured that they will have
| access to literally all the users that iOS has, by publishing
| on just one store.
|
| The Apple App Store will still be installed on every iOS
| device, unless you choose to remove it. No one is arguing
| otherwise.
|
| >You would have to submit to each store, wait for approval on
| each of them, update for each of them... to come close to the
| userbase that you can currently access by just publishing once
| on the App Store.
|
| Maybe so, but this is a relatively minor inconvenience, and
| apps are still free to choose to provide their app only on the
| Apple App Store, which every iPhone will have except where the
| user chose to remove it.
| martini333 wrote:
| cry me a river
| ajharrison wrote:
| I find it laughable how some people, after decades of lambasting
| Apple for having a closer system and a walled garden approach,
| down right berating them for it and saying it's the wrong move,
| now have come around to wanting to not only want their products,
| but have them be fully hackabale. Preposterous.
| neonate wrote:
| https://archive.is/4hWZj
| cblconfederate wrote:
| I don't see why they would advocate Apple to change their app
| store. Is it possible for one corporate to meddle into the
| product of another? They are also unlikely to achieve anything on
| the legal side of things.
|
| Instead they 'd better spend for things like :
|
| - promote awareness of monopolistic tactics to apple device
| owners
|
| - create a well advertised web payments gateway where users can
| buy subscriptions to any app, and invite developers to join
|
| - syndicalize the hordes of developers to blackout their apps or
| sth
|
| here, i made a mockup: https://i.imgur.com/P6j3jnd.png
| gpm wrote:
| > Is it possible for one corporate to meddle into the product
| of another
|
| Not really (except via negotiation), but it is possible for the
| _government_ to. I 'm not completely clear on the purpose of
| this coalition. Presumably it is either too fund lawsuits like
| Epic's (which is asking the government to stop Apple violating
| existing anti-trust laws), or to fund lobbying activities
| (which is asking the government to create stronger anti-trust
| laws, or to enforce them themselves instead of requiring a
| third party like Epic to step in and argue that they should be
| enforced). Or both.
| Abishek_Muthian wrote:
| This is what Epic should have done first, before going all guns
| on Apple.
|
| Perhaps Epic realised that passive approach to bring attention
| towards Apple's tax like Spotify isn't working and so decided to
| approach it legally. Then again, it's hard to believe that they
| thought they had a chance to get a verdict in their favour.
|
| But I don't think the attention they are trying to invoke is that
| of consumer, if anything it's impossible to invoke a consumer
| sentiment against Apple which is a aspirational buy for many and
| even religious investment to some. Epic seems to be targeting
| other app developers and so far doing a very bad job at it.
|
| IMO, It should have worked with Facebook silently even though it
| has more to loose with iOS 14's privacy settings than 30% cut[1]
| to get Facebook, instagram, WhatsApp banned on Appstore if
| necessary instead of depending upon a game played by children and
| adults who make money from children watching them play. Just ban
| WhatsApp in India and see what happens.
|
| But if Apple decides to charge tax for advertisements as well,
| then it could blow back for everyone who has advertising as
| business model. I wonder what consumers who buy for _Apple 's
| Privacy_ think about Apple essentially subsidising large
| advertising business, where as a one man developer has to pay 30%
| cut.
|
| [1]https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24297854
| ianlevesque wrote:
| I don't think they cared too much if they got a legal ruling on
| Fortnite in their favor. Fortnite is a fad that everyone has
| heard of but that is in decline. It was probably perfect for
| this purpose. I suspect they didn't expect Apple to go
| thermonuclear war on them and revoke dev tools access entirely
| (impacting unreal engine).
| makerofthings wrote:
| As a consumer, I really like how the AppStore works and I buy
| iPhones for me and for my family specifically because there is
| only one store and one way of subscribing and one way of using
| in-app purchases. I really, really hope Apple win this. I just
| don't want to have to deal with the possibility that every app is
| going to have its own in-app-purchase dark patterns.
|
| If everyone that wants to be able to side-load alternate app-
| stores could move to Android land and leave iOS alone, that would
| be great.
| acomjean wrote:
| So you like having only 1 app store for convince. I get that.
|
| But there is an legitimate argument to be made by those who do
| want it. The lack of competition is probably hurting you too,
| in the form of higher prices for everything.
|
| If there were alternatives you wouldn't be forecd to use them.
|
| What if apple starts trying to monetize in ways you don't like?
| (like trying even more aggressively to get appleTV/ AppleMusic
| subscriptions) You are putting a lot of trust in a company that
| may change its ways. If they change, where are you going to go?
| makerofthings wrote:
| I like that Apple forces app developers to use a system that
| is convenient and safe for me as the device owner. I don't
| think it would be a case of "ignore the alternatives", I
| expect many apps would abandon apple to save a few dollars
| and I would have to put my credit card into half the apps I
| currently use. I buy the phone and the apps for my benefit,
| not the benefit of Epic.
|
| I have to be honest, I subscribe to a lot more services
| through Apple than I would outside because I trust their
| cancellation mechanism. Developers may lose 30% on my
| purchases but they might not get anything outside of the
| walled garden.
|
| Also, I have a Sony Xperia running Sailfish, sat over
| there-->, for when I feel the need to tinker.
| acomjean wrote:
| Wouldn't it be nice to use old iPhones for tinkering
| instead? the hardware is pretty amazing.
|
| I guess I've decided the last few years to forsake some
| safety/connivance to ensure the right to use my hardware
| the way I want. Its harder. I have a linux notebook which
| is great, but requires a little more attention.
|
| As apple moves more into services its become less of a
| systems company, I'm not completely trusting of them.
| wvenable wrote:
| It's great but I think being charged 30% on every single app
| purchase (and yes, _you_ pay that -- not the developers) after
| paying thousands of dollars for a device is crazy. I know Apple
| fans aren 't particularly price sensitive -- it's a trillion
| dollar company for a reason.
| mhh__ wrote:
| How many apps do we use that don't have an identical
| counterpart on another platform? I have an android phone and
| looking at it, I think the only app I have installed myself
| that isn't available on the iPhone is an app that lets you
| write a shader to use as your background.
| throw_m239339 wrote:
| Not a fan of Apple here, but my parents clearly prefer the
| Apple experience with IOS, even though they started with
| Android. I prefer Android, because I'm a developer and I don't
| need to buy a Mac, get a dev license and use specific IDE and
| compiler X or Z to develop and deploy an app on my Android
| device. But common people don't care about that.
| karpierz wrote:
| If I build an operating system + hardware, should I be legally
| mandated to provide tooling to make it easy for users to find and
| install arbitrary software?
| oscargrouch wrote:
| "arbitrary software"...
|
| Take the world "arbitrary" and we can see the truth.
|
| Now let me rephrase this in the right way, to avoid the
| language tricks used on your question.
|
| Should the user have the right to install software on the
| device they bough and therefore, they own?
|
| Its not "legally mandating" the provider to be "forced" to do
| anything. Its just a matter of rights of the user who buy stuff
| from anyone.
|
| Its a pure ethical thing to do, that protects the user freedom,
| and thats what the law should do, to protect the rights of the
| party with the least power in a negotiation between two
| parties. Especially if the concept of property and ownership is
| involved.
|
| I dont get the half of the comments in this thread. If we
| depended on your point of views, we would be stuck with the
| Intels, Microsoft's, Apples and the likes with absolute control
| into our digital lifes.
|
| Remember Prism and the collusion of goverment spy agencies and
| tech companies to know everything everyone was doing?
|
| Now imagine how much power this represents? Imagine a modern
| fascist with that much power on his hands? What would he would
| be able to do?
|
| You dont even need to get into conspiracy theories, but just
| think about the rights and freedoms of the users against the
| effort of tech companies to control them.
|
| But to avoid the centralization of power and control would be a
| side-effect of people standing for those simple right's.
| dooglius wrote:
| Roughly, what you shouldn't be able to do is distribute a
| product with that requires a contract in order to build upon it
| or extend it. You'd have to tease out the nuance of this more
| in legalese for sure, but that's the gist of it. The
| application to OS+software is a special case, the same
| principle applies in e.g. why Keurig's K-Cups DRM scheme should
| not be legal.
| singularity2001 wrote:
| It should be mandatory to allow installing arbitrary apps,
| which has recently become nigh impossible, at least I couldn't
| find any way to distribute my rejected app.
| jakeva wrote:
| Any justification for forcing a hardware maker to allow
| arbitrary apps on their hardware, aside from your personal
| experience with being rejected?
| ajconway wrote:
| A single entity that only serves its shareholders is able
| to singlehandedly terminate almost any IT business out
| there... Sounds dangerous.
| inigoalonso wrote:
| I don't care about their hardware, I care about the
| hardware I own.
| jakeva wrote:
| Then it seems the rational thing for you to do is to buy
| hardware that allows arbitrary software to be run
| grahamburger wrote:
| There's quite a lot of grey area between "legally mandated to
| make it _easy_ " and "legally mandated to _not_ make it
| impossibly difficult. "
| karpierz wrote:
| I agree, but the fundamental question is do you want the
| government to regulate what kind of OS interface should be
| legal?
| criddell wrote:
| When it's good for consumers, sure.
|
| At one point AT&T was required to allow consumers to buy
| and connect their own handsets rather than only allowing
| them to rent from AT&T. Isn't that similar?
| M4v3R wrote:
| > Isn't that similar?
|
| No, what you described was a simple change in how the
| product was distributed. Forcing Apple to engineer a way
| to add 3rd party app stores on their platform would
| require significant engineering effort from them and
| changing their operating system internals significantly.
| grahamburger wrote:
| How much engineering does Google do to make sure F-droid
| or Amazon App Store works android? I would be surprised
| if it's very much.
| criddell wrote:
| So to stick with the telecom example, if you want to sell
| telecom equipment or operate a phone company you must
| include intercept capability for law enforcement. That
| involves engineering changes in the hardware and
| software, business operations changes to manage and
| execute the intercept requests, etc... Is that a closer
| example?
|
| For Apple it might be less expensive to just make a
| single policy change - allow apps to use alternate
| payment providers. That feels somewhat close to forcing
| AT&T to allow alternate telephone providers.
| izacus wrote:
| Sure, but that's not new. Here in our EU country,
| governmennt dictates the railroad owner to allow other
| railroad companies to drive freight on it (although it
| fought tooth and nails to continue fleecing everyone by
| noncompetitive prices).
|
| Competition is the basis of functional free market - and
| forces which prevent it are driving it to be abusive and
| not force of progress anymore.
| cblconfederate wrote:
| if you want your IP protections, yes. Companies don't exist in
| vacuum, they are subject to laws of the land, some of them
| advocated by people called programmers. If it's fine for
| companies to demand IP protection, it's fine for developers to
| demand fair access to that market.
| ajconway wrote:
| There are all sorts of regulations in other fields, some of
| them serve public interest (as all of them should). Forcing a
| very powerful company into making their platform more open
| might be OK.
| karpierz wrote:
| It might be, but you can make same argument about any curated
| platform.
|
| I also don't think this serves the public interest. App
| developers have much less interest in maintaining the privacy
| of users and making it easy to cancel subscriptions, among
| other things.
| ajconway wrote:
| This is a difficult issue because it involves restricting
| the freedom of a service provider to develop their product
| as they see fit. Ideally, the market itself should force
| companies to make things that are beneficial to the
| customers. Unfortunately, real customers can be
| manipulated, that is why there are regulations. I don't
| have a good answer to why there needs to be a regulation in
| this case, but it wouldn't be the first.
|
| As I mentioned in another reply, both Apple and Google,
| despite not being monopolists, can arbitrarily restrict
| competition, because they have the power to refuse serving
| some apps. I would argue that it is dangerous, and
| corporations should not have that kind of power.
| izacus wrote:
| In ideal world, yes. OS vendor should not dictate what runs on
| the OS and under which conditions. Same for HW vendors.
|
| This is a prerequirement for free market to work - the option
| for new competition to crop up in different fields and give you
| more options, more innovation and the ability to beat the
| platform owner at their own stagnation.
|
| This does not exclude the platform owner from launching their
| own stack and competing on its merits. It's the forceful
| blocking that's anticompetitive and prevents innovation and
| improvement.
| 52-6F-62 wrote:
| And if there were _no_ App Store at all would Apple have been
| obligated to allow one? Or any third party software? That
| seems to be the argument being made.
|
| Frankly, if it's between opening up iOS to all software or no
| third-party software at all, I'd take the latter. That's the
| peace of mind I wanted when I bought my iOS item. Having a
| singular, curated App Store is the next best thing for that
| kind of platform. There are other platforms available for
| other designs and purposes.
| onion2k wrote:
| I don't think you should be legally mandated to make it _easy_
| , but if you sell a product to someone you shouldn't be allowed
| to stop them using it in the way they want to. If you do choose
| to retain control over how they can use the device then you
| should accept there might need to be regulation over what
| limits you can put in place in order to stop you doing things
| that are anti-competitive.
| karpierz wrote:
| If users want to jailbreak their devices, that's up to them.
|
| Apple doesn't stop you from doing anything with your device,
| Apple thugs won't break your kneecaps if you subvert their
| restrictions.
| izacus wrote:
| > Apple doesn't stop you from doing anything with your
| device, Apple thugs won't break your kneecaps if you
| subvert their restrictions.
|
| Apple has added code that's explicitly built just to
| prevent running code without their approval. They even add
| code that prevents usage of compatible periphelas that
| don't have their own DRM chip. They've built dedicated
| hardware just to lock you out of doing "anything" with your
| device.
|
| That's a really really bizarre definition of "doesn't stop
| you".
| orangecat wrote:
| _If users want to jailbreak their devices, that 's up to
| them._
|
| Only because of a temporary DMCA exemption that Apple has
| consistently opposed. If they had their way, jailbreaking
| would be a federal crime.
| ksk wrote:
| If you build an OS + hardware, how are you assuming apriori
| that you have users and also developers who write software that
| targets your platform? But anyway, the answer is no you should
| not be legally mandated in your case of boutique products.
|
| The rules are different when free-markets fail, and one product
| or service dominates the entire market segment or exerts a
| large influence on the market (as determined by a legal
| authority).
|
| The entire purpose of government is to serve our needs, if its
| no longer doing that we should amend laws/rules/policies as
| necessary. Everyone should be free to make an argument for
| their case.
| yladiz wrote:
| Why should I read this website and take it seriously if I can't
| even read the cookie policy without accepting cookies, and when I
| actually do attempt to read the policy (thanks Reader Mode) I am
| told that to opt-out I have to disable cookies in my browser?
|
| Looking further and reading their privacy policy in the section
| titled "Your European Rights", I see this:
|
| > You have the right to ask us not to process your Personal Data
| for marketing purposes. We will usually inform you (before
| collecting your Personal Data) if we intend to use your Personal
| Data for such purposes or if we intend to disclose your
| information to any third party for such purposes. You can
| exercise your right to prevent such processing by checking
| certain boxes on the forms we use to collect your Personal Data.
|
| This is backwards. It is my right to not have you process my
| personal data for marketing purposes unless I opt-in, not my
| right to opt-out. This is an important distinction, and the fact
| that they have a poorly worded privacy policy on this makes me
| feel like they didn't really do their due diligence on this very
| basic stuff.
| pb7 wrote:
| It's probably because they care very little about consumer
| rights and are just doing what companies do: attempt to make
| the most money possible.
| sweezyjeezy wrote:
| Do their motivations invalidate the argument?
| pb7 wrote:
| Absolutely. I like the status quo and I'm not eager to find
| out what my new world will be like when the companies
| signaling that they don't really care about consumers have
| the power instead of Apple.
| sweezyjeezy wrote:
| The power to... not have to pay Apple so much for in app
| purchases in the app store? How does that hurt you, the
| consumer?
| wcr3 wrote:
| "does the fact that mr. crocodile eats small, flightless
| birds invalidate his argument that he can get me (a small,
| flightless bird) across the river faster than i could do so
| alone?"
| sweezyjeezy wrote:
| I didn't say 'show me an example of how motivations can
| invalidate an argument', I am talking about this
| particular example - how does Epic et al's desire to make
| money invalidate their argument that Apple has a anti-
| competitive monopoly on the app store?
| TedShiller wrote:
| If they don't like the App Store rules, those companies are free
| to develop, sell, and promote their own cell phone hardware and
| ecosystem. Nobody is forcing them to use Apple.
| can16358p wrote:
| Don't want to pay 30%? Don't develop for the platform then. I
| really think all these guys trying to change a company's own
| ecosystem's rules that the company itself created, are paid
| actors. I haven't seen a more flawed argument then knowing the
| exact rules of the ecosystem, which is owned by a company, and
| trying to change it. It's their company, their platform, their
| rules. It's been the same way since the beginning. Get over it.
| Simple as that.
| bogomipz wrote:
| Agreed and I have to wonder how any of these companies would
| respond if it was their users who agreed and knew the terms of
| their ecosystem and were now asking these three companies to
| change their rules.
|
| Using Spotify as an example. I can't imagine Spotify responding
| favorably to a consortium of musicians who wanted to publish
| direct to the platform and receive a better royalty rate for
| instance. Spotify also doesn't seem to have any problem
| agreeing to the terms dictated by the Big three record labels
| that control and the majority of recorded music that they have
| no choice but to agree to.
| xlii wrote:
| I just canceled Spotify membership I had for years for now.
|
| I don't have anything for Spotify or their fight with Apple. It
| makes sense.
|
| But on the other hand I refuse to help Epic in any initiative
| they take or to endorse companies that sides with them. Epic is
| in my eyes evil company and they done a lot of bad things in area
| I care about. I know that few of my friends do the same right
| now.
|
| It probably doesn't matter, but the only thing one can do is to
| vote with their wallet.
| ketzu wrote:
| > Epic is in my eyes evil company and they done a lot of bad
| things in area I care about.
|
| Can you elaborate on that? It's hard to follow for me.
|
| Also: You don't give money to epic, you also think the goal of
| spotify in that case makes sense. But you are willing to hurt a
| goal that you think makes sense because someone you don't like
| also thinks that goal is worth fighting for? This seems
| unnecessary and a bad strategy.
| xlii wrote:
| Epic introduced the concept of exclusivity on the PC gaming
| scene. Earlier Steam (which arguably is monopoly) provided
| option to buy games but those games could be distributed from
| outside - and many games did so. Right now Epic locks some of
| the games in their EGS store. Few kickstarted games were
| "bought" by Epic into (and which I personally backed, but I
| have no access to unless I accept their conditions).
|
| There is a lot to cover, if you're interested you could
| probably read a lot about people's game library being locked
| out due to some arbitrary reasons, cards details leaking out
| from EGS or people being charged twice and never refunded.
| Epic is a bully in a sheep's skin and they already proved
| that multiple times both in general and in direct way.
|
| As for the goal - the goal makes sense for Spotify, not me. I
| wouldn't condemn them for trying yet I don't have a stake
| there. They don't do this so that I can pay less, they do
| this so that they can earn more. I don't see why I should put
| my mind on helping huge, wealthy company to obtain their
| goals. Same goes with Apple.
| capableweb wrote:
| > Epic introduced the concept of exclusivity on the PC
| gaming scene
|
| Which event are you referring to exactly? I think the first
| time I encountered something related to exclusivity on PC
| gaming was the first time I bought CS:Source and had to
| download and sign up with Steam to be able to run it, even
| though I got it on a CD/DVD. This must have been around
| 2005 or so I think.
| xlii wrote:
| Uhm but you're aware that CS:Source was developed by
| Valve company behind the Steam? The same goes true for
| Unreal Tournament. You want to play it you install Epic
| installer. That's fine point. Rockstar and Ubisoft have
| their own launchers and it's not an issue.
|
| Issue is that Epic holds the 3rd party games, snatching
| them from early access etc. effectively limit previously
| open access.
| capableweb wrote:
| What games are you talking about specifically here and
| when? Fortnite was also developed by Unreal by the way.
|
| Also, Epic is not the first company to buy a game + its
| license and then only allow people to play it via their
| platform. Counter-Strike was a independent mod back in
| the days, before Valve bought it. Same goes for Day of
| Defeat and bunch of others games.
|
| I'm sure we can find even earlier examples of this
| happening. For all I know, this happens with every
| digital medium, pretty early on, and it's not news that
| game companies are greedy (both Valve, Epic and every
| other AAA studio/company)
| xlii wrote:
| There's a LOT.
|
| https://www.gamewatcher.com/news/Epic-games-store-
| exclusives
|
| Counter-Strike was Half-Life mod, and Half-Life was
| developed by Valve, so it's still the same developer. And
| yes, the Epic is the first company on the PC to do that.
| Console exclusiveness is known fact, but you could _buy_
| game outside of the Steam if you wanted to. Epic started
| to hunt for 3rd party games and lock them in
| exclusiveness deals.
| capableweb wrote:
| > Counter-Strike was Half-Life mod, and Half-Life was
| developed by Valve, so it's still the same developer
|
| That's not how that works. Someone else developed
| Counter-Strike and released it to the community. Then
| around ~2000 Valve bought it + license and continued to
| develop it (with original developers as well).
|
| DotA -> League of Legends was something similar as well.
| Third-party mods that got bought up by a company and then
| made exclusive to a particular store.
|
| If you thought that the PC industry is somehow becoming
| like the Apple App Store, I think you're living in a
| fantasy. You can still download and run whatever binary
| you want. On a iPhone, you cannot.
| ketzu wrote:
| > As for the goal - the goal makes sense for Spotify, not
| me. I wouldn't condemn them for trying yet I don't have a
| stake there. They don't do this so that I can pay less,
| they do this so that they can earn more. I don't see why I
| should put my mind on helping huge, wealthy company to
| obtain their goals. Same goes with Apple.
|
| I personally think this is quite a far reaching issue we
| can and should form an opinion on. I don't own an apple
| device but I think it's an important issue of user freedom.
| It is a much stricter version of the exclusivity you
| consider a problem.
|
| But I overinterpreted your original statement. Sorry about
| that.
|
| Also: Thank you for elaborating on the issues. I was aware
| of those points. I just don't share your judgement about
| those issues, but there's no real point in discussing them
| further as it's super off-topic :)
| n_ wrote:
| Does Apple allow developers to just charge 30% more when users
| sign up through iOS, and just note in the app that access to the
| service though iOS costs more?
|
| Seems fair to me, and let's consumers know where the money is
| going (to Apple, presumably to pay for ecosystem things like app
| privacy and security reviews, billing, etc).
|
| If users don't like it, then the market will do it's thing right?
|
| It's unclear to me what types of messaging Apple bans developers
| from adding though. Like is it ok with Apple for me to build an
| app available on web for a certain price, but block access via
| native iOS apps unless the user agrees to a 30% increase to cover
| the Apple tax?
|
| I think this is what I would want to do if I operated a
| subscription service available via native app in the app store.
| nodamage wrote:
| > Does Apple allow developers to just charge 30% more when
| users sign up through iOS, and just note in the app that access
| to the service though iOS costs more?
|
| You are allowed to do the former but not the latter.
| n_ wrote:
| I think that's where I have a problem with the policy.
|
| I'd specify though, that it makes sense Apple would not allow
| developers to make the signup via web a work around, just to
| avoid paying Apple and still use my service through iOS.
|
| However, if I block access to my service from native iOS apps
| until a user agrees to pay the 30% extra, that feels fair and
| still follows the spirit of the rules IMO.
|
| Not letting me tell users what they are paying for, or why
| they can't access my service on iOS until they cough up an
| extra 30%, that's overreach.
| Imaiomus wrote:
| fock, them, all
| gpm wrote:
| All the arguments about what company is most evil entirely miss
| the point.
|
| You don't make a decision on a specific issue based on what
| company you like more, you base it on who is right on the
| specific issue.
|
| From an ethical perspective that's what having a codified rule of
| laws is all about. Everyone get's the same rules no matter how
| much you like them. You don't arbitrarily punish people for doing
| things you don't like by denying them unrelated things that they
| are entitled to unless you go in front of a judge and get a judge
| to order that as a punishment for doing the thing you don't like.
|
| From a entirely practical and short term perspective these
| decisions do not just impact the companies you don't like, they
| also impact everyone else because our legal system puts a very
| heavy weight on precedent.
|
| I'm strongly reminded of the quote "Freedom of speech doesn't
| protect speech you like; it protects speech you don't like."
| (though obviously in this case it is applied to justice in
| general instead of speech in particular).
| geodel wrote:
| > I'm strongly reminded of the quote "Freedom of speech doesn't
| protect speech you like; it protects speech you don't like...
|
| Modern addendum is "You can have Freedom Of Speech but no
| guarantee for Freedom After speech."
|
| Edit: Just to clarify, It is not my opinion. It is Social media
| warriors warning people "Free speech is not free of
| consequences"
| mercurysmessage wrote:
| "Free speech is not free of consequences"
|
| This is absolutely true though? I fail to see your point.
|
| You are free to say what you want, and other people are free
| to criticize you for it. If you don't support the right to
| criticize, you don't support free speech.
| geodel wrote:
| It is more of "free to criticize' vs 'free to destroy
| livelihood' thing. Some would say both are same or second
| is just an implementation detail of first.
| alkonaut wrote:
| Free speech is the right to not be arrested for speaking.
| It's not the right to not be punched in the face for
| saying stupid things (there is a separate law for face
| punching).
| seneca wrote:
| > Free speech is the right to not be arrested for
| speaking. It's not the right to not be punched in the
| face for saying stupid things (there is a separate law
| for face punching).
|
| No, the 1st Amendment is the right to not be arrested for
| speaking (in the United States). Free Speech is a
| philosophy that would absolutely cover not committing
| physical violence against someone for what they say.
| Violence in response to speech is probably a good
| starting point for the definition of unfree speech.
| gpm wrote:
| This is spot on. In addition the first amendment is
| theoretically protection against punching you in the face
| not being prohibited because of something you said. The
| government could make face punching legal in general, but
| not legal only if the victim first makes an idiot out of
| themselves.
| alkonaut wrote:
| Yes, the reason we have laws against face punching people
| who say dumb things is partly to protect free speech in
| the philosophical sense (there are obviously other
| reasons too, such as that it hurts).
|
| This still doesn't mean that speech without consequences
| is possible. The grandparent comment mentioned the loss
| of a livelihood as an example (unsure exactly what it
| refers to but could be e.g boycotts).
| RonanTheGrey wrote:
| Depends on the consequences. Usually this is invoked to
| mean "it's fine for me burn down your business or destroy
| your life because I don't like you because consequences
| <grin>"
|
| In general, the statement CANNOT be true, because the
| chilling effect explicitly suppresses free speech -- being
| a result of consequences. Ergo, consequence (of a
| particular type) is in fact suppression of free speech.
| lucisferre wrote:
| > Usually this is invoked to mean "it's fine for me burn
| down your business or destroy your life because I don't
| like you because consequences <grin>"
|
| What a ridiculous hyperbole of what it "usually" means.
| DevKoala wrote:
| I struggled to read your comment, but it shouldn't be
| ignored. What you are saying is correct.
| jariel wrote:
| The issue is 'anti competitiveness' not 'evil' and most
| arguments are pointed at that.
| gpm wrote:
| Things have improved since I posted this.
|
| At the time I posted this the top comment and many other
| highly voted comments were just criticizing epic, spotify,
| and tinder. E.g. complaining that epic sells to kids, spotify
| doesn't pay artists enough, and that tinder sells sex and
| commits age discrimination.
|
| Regardless of whether or not they are valid complaints, they
| aren't at all related to anti trust (or if they are, no one
| was bothering to make the connection).
|
| This use to be the top comment, for reference:
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24579860
|
| This was the comment that was the tipping point for me making
| the post, and was at the time ranked fairly highly (hence all
| the replies to it):
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24579479
| sarakayakomzin wrote:
| > Things have improved since I posted this.
|
| >Regardless of whether or not they are valid complaints
|
| >This use to be the top comment
|
| >This was the comment that was the tipping point for me
| making the post
|
| >>> Things have improved since I posted this.
|
| I mean, you look at something new and you're going to have
| low-quality comments based on their first thoughts on
| something. I don't understand the confusion.
| anm89 wrote:
| Well said.
| [deleted]
| jlelse wrote:
| > All the arguments about what company is most evil entirely
| miss the point.
|
| This!
| bonaldi wrote:
| The wider context around the specific issues can still be
| useful in deciding what's "best" (distinct from "right"). EG:
| look at the antitrust case Apple lost over eBook pricing. The
| rules said they should lose in order to ensure a fair market
| for eBooks, a minute's consideration of the wider context said
| that if they lost Amazon would suck up the entire market. Which
| it did. The net result, even if narrowly within the rules, was
| a loss for consumers and for competition
| stefan_ wrote:
| No, the rules say organizing a price fixing ring is illegal.
| The result of which was literally to simultaneously raise
| prices for consumers across all platforms.
|
| It's particularly ironic in this case because the whole point
| of the exercise for Apple was to increase prices so they
| could still charge their extortionate 30%. Amazon wasn't
| remotely that greedy.
| valuearb wrote:
| That's the silliest perspective on this case you could
| have. Apple gave publishers the right to set their own
| prices, but in return required they don't undercut those
| prices on other platforms.
|
| Apple had only a a small market share at the time.
| Publishers could have said, nah, we are happy with Amazon,
| and refused to agree to Apple's terms. This is about as
| clear a free market as one gets, that it became an
| antitrust issue shows how crazytown antitrust law has
| become.
|
| This was attractive to Publishers because they were
| terrified of an Amazon monopoly. Amazon selling ebooks at
| cost did nothing for Publishers long term because it was
| killing other ebook competitors. This offered a viable
| competitor to be an ebook outlet.
|
| Instead the misguided Justice department and a judge made
| Apple back down and what do we have now? Exactly what
| publishers feared, an Amazon monopoly.
| temp667 wrote:
| The question from a principle standpoint is - can a company
| create an area where trust / safety / security are prioritized.
| T
|
| Developers no doubt disagree with this, they have created a web
| that is filled with crap. Let's be 100% clear about that.
|
| Spam calls via voip, spam into email, ddos floods of every sort
| imaginable, impossible to unsubscribe, cramming and slamming on
| subscription renewals and the list goes on. They don't want
| root on your device to help you, but to screw you in enough
| cases that you shouldn't give them root. Trust / security /
| safety are low low low on the list of almost all startup and
| other developers "growth hacking" etc.
|
| Apple wanted to create their own little world. Phones with
| updates that keep on getting updated, an app marketplace with
| much more transparent pricing (lot less fine print), and the
| list goes on.
|
| You need to look at what apple is doing in context. The world
| on the net developers and hackers here on HN have created is
| terrible in many ways for many many people. At some point folks
| are just tied of the endless scams.
|
| Now the same folks who trashed a lot of the rest of the web (do
| you answer your phone when an unkown number calls?) want into
| the walled apple garden.
| gpm wrote:
| To keep the continuity of discussion, I assume that this
| comment was posted here because my top level comment was in
| part a reply to your (temp667's) comment here:
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24579860
|
| I appreciate the attempt to connect this to the anti-trust
| suit, but I don't see this as a good justification for why
| your original critique is relevant for a few reasons:
|
| - Many of the practices in your original critique are allowed
| on (or not prevented by) Apple's app store. The argument you
| are making here only makes sense as pertaining to anti-trust
| to the extent that you are critiquing practices that Apple is
| preventing.
|
| - It doesn't particularly matter whether the people trying to
| overturn Apple's practice are the bad actors, or third
| parties are, since the lawsuit affects all parties (third
| party or not) equally. So while you could make a consumer
| benefit argument based on bad actors (indeed, Apple has tried
| to in the lawsuit), it makes little to no sense to focus on
| the parties suing (and simultaneously falls into the trap of
| just arguing that people you don't like don't deserve
| justice).
|
| On a separate note - I also find the argument for Apple's
| bundling of services here unconvincing. I have seen no
| argument for why Apple's curation service needs to be bundled
| with the phone - which is the prerequisite of the anti trust
| suit. Consider that apple could perfectly well sell the
| hardware and OS, and separately sell (or even offer for free)
| a software package that locks out third party app stores and
| third party payment providers. Doing so would practically
| destroy any argument that they are using their monopoly on
| IPhone hardware and IOs to acquire a monopoly on app
| distribution and payment services. To the extent that people
| find the lock in useful, I expect they would install that
| software package.
| valuearb wrote:
| Selling separately destroys the iPhone brand and business
| model. Far fewer would pay for a separate OS, iPhones would
| have to be more expensive if they didn't bundle a services
| component, customers wouldn't trust iPhone as much.
|
| There is a simple solution, and it's not misguided
| delusional antitrust talk. It's buying the other type of
| smartphone that is 85% of unit sales world wide.
| freedomben wrote:
| > _To the extent that people find the lock in useful, I
| expect they would install that software package._
|
| Deep down I would guess that most people will still object
| on consequentialist grounds, because they know that not
| enough people will opt in unless forced, and so vendors
| will be able to ignore the walled garden. Apple sure as
| hell wouldn't be able to take 30% if there were other ways
| onto the iPhone, as big vendors would avoid it, thus
| requiring most users to give up the safe walled garden.
|
| I still come out strongly against Apple on this one however
| as I am not a consequentialist.
| temp667 wrote:
| You don't have to agree with apple, but they clearly think
| the halo effect of having just one reasonably fair app
| store on their platform increases their platform brand
| power and profits both. I think they are right.
|
| Can I ask a question. When your elderly parents or kids ask
| for a phone (assuming they are not developers), does it
| give you no comfort that if its an apple from end to end
| including app store things will be a bit more reasonable?
|
| And you do realize if things are unbundled, then EVERY
| phone company will dump their crap onto every users phone
| except for the folks who know enough to go uninstall / use
| the lockout thing you are talking about. And you don't
| think that will damage the overall apple brand?
| gpm wrote:
| > You don't have to agree with apple, but they clearly
| think the halo effect of having just one reasonably fair
| app store on their platform increases their platform
| brand power and profits both. I think they are right.
|
| I agree, but "it makes us more money and gives us more
| power" has never been a defense against anti-trust law.
| Indeed if this was not true I imagine that anti-trust law
| would never have been necessary in the first place.
|
| > Can I ask a question. When your elderly parents or kids
| ask for a phone (assuming they are not developers), does
| it give you no comfort that if its an apple from end to
| end including app store things will be a bit more
| reasonable?
|
| First I have to point out that the unbundling solution
| solves this problem entirely. I just install the "lock
| this to the apple ecosystem" software before I give them
| the phone and I get all the current benefits as it
| pertains to children and elderly tech-dependents with
| none of the anti-trust issues.
|
| I have to admit that I can only answer this question in
| theory. I have no kids (and don't plan on future kids)
| and my parents are more technically competent than
| average. The extent that I manage their technology is
| "this is good value for the price" and installing ublock
| origin everywhere.
|
| The honest theoretical answer though is I don't think it
| would. There are a number of reasons for this.
|
| - I _really_ don 't trust the app store to stop abusive
| behaviors in the first place.
|
| - I could lock probably lock down an Android to the
| extent that I'm as happy as I would be with an apple (not
| very).
|
| - I would (and do) worry a hell of a lot more about the
| internet than I would (do) about apps.
|
| - I worry about the internet a hell of a lot more on
| IPhones than I do on androids, because I can't install a
| proper adblocker, because of Apples anti-competitive
| policies regarding browsers (the ad blocking api's in
| safari are gimped compared to firefox).
|
| - At the point where I don't trust someone with a phone,
| I also wouldn't trust them with a credit card in
| general... at which point none of the payment stuff is
| problematic (But I acknowledge that the social reality
| w.r.t. the elderly and credit cards makes this a hard
| problem).
|
| > And you do realize if things are unbundled, then EVERY
| phone company will dump their crap onto every users phone
| except for the folks who know enough to go uninstall /
| use the lockout thing you are talking about. And you
| don't think that will damage the overall apple brand?
|
| This can be solved with apple only providing phones to
| sellers who agree not to do that easily enough. While I
| know epic has some issues with this strategy (as it
| pertains to Google and pre-installing fortnite) I do not.
| bad_user wrote:
| On the ad-blocking side, Android fans are blowing this
| out of proportion.
|
| First of all, Safari's content blockers, while far less
| capable than uBO, are pretty adequate for the time being.
| In my experience, iOS Safari + Wipr is fine.
|
| Also, and this point is underrated, content blockers work
| in most app web views. For example Twitter's or Gmail's.
| Not all web views of course. Facebook for example chooses
| to use a web view, for opening links, that doesn't have
| support for ad blockers.
|
| Moreover, alternative browsers, such as Firefox, or Edge,
| or Brave, or Vivaldi, could still implement ad blocking.
| Not via an extension, but built in. And they in fact do.
| Microsoft's Edge included.
|
| Firefox on iOS is a little weak of course. They are only
| blocking domains meant for tracking, and they use the
| Disconnect list. Which is rather short. But they do take
| care of common ad exchanges, when in strict mode.
|
| Also, Safari itself blocks third party tracking by
| default. It doesn't block the requests themselves, but it
| does block the cookies they set. So it doesn't block a
| request to Google Analytics, but it does block its
| cookie. New in iOS 14 is that this capability became
| available to all web views. So including Firefox on iOS.
| Users have to opt-out if they don't want it.
|
| Also iOS 14 has disabled the advertising ID, by default.
| Users have to opt-in explicitly, screwing the plans of
| Facebook, whose SDK is used by a lot of apps to gather
| metrics.
|
| I would love to have full Firefox on iOS, but truth is,
| this is a false narrative. Given Firefox's popularity on
| Android, I can tell you that iOS users are in fact more
| protected from trackers and ads, out of the box.
|
| And it's not just about Firefox's popularity btw, I'm a
| huge Firefox supporter, but on Android it sucked in terms
| of performance, behavior, and compatibility with the web.
| From simple things, like pinching to zoom, with the fonts
| getting all blurry. As a technical user, you might live
| with that, but you wouldn't subject your parents to it.
|
| You make it seem like on Android you have choices. Well,
| not really. Most people use Chrome, or Samsung's browser.
| On iOS, did you know that the only browser without ad
| blocking capabilities is Chrome?
|
| Not to mention that you can also do DNS-level blocking,
| via NextDNS, or Pi-hole.
|
| And there's another aspect. My son has an Android and a
| majority of games are ads-driven. Imagine a drawing app
| that forces kids to click for more ads in order to
| receive clues/rewards, without which they can't advance
| in the game. Quite brilliant if you ask me. It also
| forces them to disable any ad blocking that their parents
| installed ;-)
|
| Well, on iOS people actually spend money on apps. And
| Apple has a new subscription even, called Apple Arcade,
| which gives people access to a collection of games
| without any ads, or in-app purchases. Just pay a
| subscription, and the games can't play tricks on you.
| This is what curation does.
|
| Unfortunately my son wanted an Android for now. So I'll
| have to wait about 2 years, until his Android tables
| becomes unsupported and obsolete. And in the meantime my
| iPad Pro from 2015 will still be upgradable to the latest
| iOS.
|
| If you're saying that you can't trust iOS's ecosystem
| more than Android, for you children, then you're
| seriously unfamiliar with it, sorry.
| greycol wrote:
| Sure Apple can create their area of trust/safety/security in
| their apple store allowing those who want that to stay there.
| They can't however do that on a device they've sold to
| customers.
|
| The question from a principle standpoint is - can companies
| stop a customer from modifying a device they own when it only
| effects the customer.
|
| Or more realistically there is more than one question and you
| have to make trade offs between the right answer to all of
| them (and what people believe the right answer to be).
|
| My view is: Make it hard to install out of App store, warn
| people about all the security/trust/safety there losing each
| time they enable a fine grained permissions. It's a simple
| security rule; don't install anything not in the app store,
| yes pay the 30% premium for that security. Yes it's not
| perfect but the current situation definitely isn't either.
| cma wrote:
| > Apple wanted to create their own little world. Phones with
| updates that keep on getting updated, an app marketplace with
| much more transparent pricing (lot less fine print), and the
| list goes on.
|
| Other than anti-trust and similar laws, there is nothing
| stopping Apple from eventually creeping it onto the web. It's
| "their" device after all.
| spideymans wrote:
| >Trust / security / safety are low low low on the list of
| almost all startup and other developers "growth hacking" etc.
|
| Yeah I find this general argument that developers should be
| "trusted" with the "freedom" of an "open" ecosystem, with all
| those happy buzzwords, so off-putting. I mean, sure, I might
| perhaps trust the small indie developer working out of his
| basement to not screw me over, but by and large the software
| that end users are interacting with are coming out of
| faceless billion dollar behemoths looking to squeeze every
| dollar out of their users (and associated data) as possible.
| I have zero reason to trust them, particularly given the
| conduct of the Internet giants (ahem... Facebook).
|
| Perhaps if these businesses had a more user-friendly business
| model, end users would've been comfortable using a less
| restrictive mobile software platforms, similar to what we
| used to have on desktop computers. Facebook et all have
| reaped what they sowed, and they get zero sympathy from me
| regarding their App Store situation. They're the reason that
| users (even on HN) generally celebrate when Apple imposes an
| ever growing list of privacy restrictions on their
| activities.
| munk-a wrote:
| The ethics of speech protection and laws are a complicated
| subject - I strongly agree that being moral judgements into
| punishments is a dark road that has led to a lot of racism and
| other discrimination in the past... _but_ justice isn 't blind
| and unmoving, justice should evolve to reinforce changes in
| ethical thinking in society at large. There have been several
| prominent incidents recently that have shown that the portion
| of legal enforcement relying on societal norms in the US has
| been broken, I think due to our general acceptance that greed
| and money are good and having those things means you've
| succeeded in life.
|
| Legal judgments that leave a bad taste in your mouth shouldn't
| be ignored but examined to see if the laws that we have
| actually fit the society we're trying to maintain - people
| shouldn't be arbitrarily persecuted for actions and ex post
| facto protections are very well intentioned and wisely put in
| place to protect against some really heinous abuses - but
| questioning whether the law should be changed to prevent future
| incidents isn't bad - it's how our legal system evolves.
| desmap wrote:
| The most underrated thing we might get with multiple app stores:
|
| Devs do not need anymore XCode or a Mac to develop for iOS since
| Apple couldn't enforce any specific runtime or proprietary tool-
| chains anymore. I have an extra Macbook lying around here just
| for that reason.
|
| Who knows if Google will then offer Android Studio for iOS or
| Facebook a real React Native. Good times ahead and I cross my
| fingers. You don't have to like Epic, Spotify or Tinder but if
| they're successful developers in particular will benefit due to a
| richer iOS dev ecosystem.
| Dahoon wrote:
| That would be the day I _might_ own my first Apple device or
| even release my apps on it.
| tehwebguy wrote:
| Why don't they just get together and make a phone?
| lotsofpulp wrote:
| Everyone wants the recurring -as-a-service revenue without the
| R&D expense.
| ajharrison wrote:
| Ahahahahahahahahaha. I am always appalled by the level of
| entitlement these companies think they have. Guess what, this is
| Apple's market and they can choose the rules. Cry away.
| vaccinator wrote:
| Nice.
| revel wrote:
| To me this seems pretty straightforward. App Stores are directly
| tied and bundled with the operating system. Within the device
| universe there are basically 2 choices of operating systems. This
| is an extremely concentrated industry with an extremely high HHI.
| Apple and Google favor their own products and discriminate
| against competitors and have done for years. They also extract
| rent from other companies forced to use their App Stores far in
| excess of the services they provide.
|
| MS vs European Commission found that the company illegally
| bundled Internet Explorer with their Operating System to the
| detriment of customer and at the expense of other businesses.
| Almost everything about current OS and App Store bundle seems
| essentially identical. To me this could not be more clear.
| crazygringo wrote:
| > _To me this could not be more clear._
|
| The difference was that Microsoft monopolized the PC OS market.
|
| Apple does not monopolize the cell phone OS market.
|
| Consumers still have total choice between Apple and Android, so
| it's not an identical situation whatsoever. If Macs had had 50%
| market share way back when (instead of what, 5%?), Microsoft
| would never have been in legal trouble for bundling IE.
| shadowgovt wrote:
| Ah, okay. Now I begin to see their goals.
|
| I've been trying to wrap my head around why Epic would shoulder-
| tackle Apple in the space of app stores, when they have their own
| app store. Naively, I've been thinking that any ruling adverse to
| Apple here also impacts Epic's business model---if the government
| caps app store revenue cuts at, say, 10%, that's a slice off the
| top of what Epic can charge developers going through its store,
| too.
|
| But Epic is a game publisher first, app store owner second. A
| fair and regulated market is a win for them, because it decreases
| the barriers to competition in the app store space while, on
| average, probably diminishing store owner cuts, which benefits
| developers, of which Epic is one. So a more regulated market is a
| net positive for them.
| krelian wrote:
| Epic scored a lucky (?) hit with fortnite that brought them a
| lot of cash but I believe their bread and butter is their game
| engine where do they charge a percentage of the profits. Their
| store is more of a long-term investment, it might not bring a
| lot of revenue at the moment but if things go well for them it
| can easily convert to the top dog.
| immigrantsheep wrote:
| Epic doesn't take anything until your game makes $1,000,000
| in gross revenue. After that they take 5%
| conception wrote:
| This is a good analysis but it always seemed so simple to me.
| If they win this ruling they overnight can make like a billion
| dollars more a year. Putting resources into this case makes
| more business sense then any other venture they could try.
| m12k wrote:
| It's highly unlikely that a regulator would cap Apple's cut at
| e.g. 10% like that. Apple is using a monopoly on distribution
| to enforce a monopoly on payments (and can thus
| monopolistically set prices arbitrarily) so it is most likely a
| regulator would force them to allow competition on distribution
| and payments, and thus allow the market to change the 30%
| organically, rather than just enforce a different arbitrary
| cut.
| egypturnash wrote:
| Valve used to be a game publisher first and an app store owner
| second, too. I'm sure Epic's app store was in part inspired by
| looking at the immense pile of money Valve is now sitting on
| due to getting a 30% cut of most PC game money for most of the
| past two decades.
| adwi wrote:
| I think it's worth noting how hostile Epic's app store is to
| its customers.
|
| They force you to use it to launch games you've already
| purchased from them, which just means you have to waste
| processor cycles to wade through a grip of their blaring ads
| (and can only imagine the data they're collecting/monetizing
| from this)
|
| Pure enter through the gift shop.
|
| The dark patterns are egregious as well; a tech-savvy friend
| bought a game from them so we could multiplayer. I got a call
| from him 20 minutes later because he was unable to find the
| game he just purchased, even the transaction went through and
| it was downloaded.
|
| Turns out they had a "feature" hidden in the preferences that
| was enabled by default _to hide the library of your purchased
| games from the navigation menu._
| ornitorrincos wrote:
| I have never experienced that, and I use it since it was
| purely for the unreal engine, could you provide more details?
| I'm curious.
|
| For what its worth, the game store sucks and the ue4 assets
| store works better, which probably shows where their
| attention is on
| syspec wrote:
| But the GPs anecdote shows where their intent is. They are
| not virtuous advocates for consumers.
| MarioMan wrote:
| Strange that that's an option. Looks like some sort of legacy
| option so Unreal Engine devs don't have to deal with the
| store.
|
| Image of the option: https://www.epicgames.com/help/en-
| US/epic-games-store-c73/la...
| dewey wrote:
| https://appfairness.org/our-vision/
|
| On this page I can't even scroll, both with iPad and Mac.
| andromeduck wrote:
| That's such an arbitrary delineation. What consoles or in-app
| markets? Should epic also be forced to allow arbitrary third
| party on fornite store for example and Nintendo the switch? And
| why limit it to digital markets?
|
| I feel like this is like trying to legislate walmart into leasing
| floor space to set up their own shops just because they don't
| want to pay their own stocking fees. It just makes no sense as
| anything other than a blatant attempt at regulatory capture which
| I'd argue is far more anti-competitive and extractive in spirit
| than what Apple/Google are doing.
|
| The pro competitive move for these companies should do is team up
| with each other and create their own ecosystem like what Google
| did with Chrome and Android when they were freaked out at the
| prospects of an Apple and Microsoft controlled mobile space.
|
| If they truly think they can provide so much more value to both
| devs and users but for the 30% app store fee then please actually
| do so and we'll all be better off. It's not like they're short on
| capital collectively.
| doublerabbit wrote:
| "The Coalition for App Fairness", I cannot not laugh.
|
| On the stage you have:
|
| Epic - Trying to be the next Valve/Steam. Happy to rip off their
| customers via in-game transactions.
|
| Spotify - Who rip off artists by either failing or paying very
| little in royalties.
|
| Tinder - Sells sex.
|
| None of these companies have any care for the actual developer;
| who are the folk trying to make a living from their creations.
| speedgoose wrote:
| Tinder sells rejections and disappointments too.
| Kalium wrote:
| Tinder doesn't sell sex. It sells access to a Skinner box
| with intermittent positive reinforcement and frequent
| negative reinforcement where the reward is human connection.
|
| Way, _way_ more psychologically toxic.
| valvar wrote:
| Or happiness. I met my wife on Tinder several years ago, and
| we know other couples who met the same way.
| asou wrote:
| Considering Tinder's parent ( The Match Group ) got sued by the
| FTC for fraud, not very smart to include them. Intentionally
| making subscriptions hard to cancel is one of the behaviors
| Apple's payment system seeks to prevent.
|
| As much as I like Tim Sweeney's arguments for lower royalties,
| he doesn't have half a toe to stand on.
|
| Don't want to pay the Apple tax, make your own phone. This
| fairness coalition is free to manufacture Android phones with a
| no royalties store . Hogan's Law on YouTube has done a very
| good take on this. The government can not compel two companies
| to engage in a contract. If I set up a newspaper stand and
| decide anyone who wants to sell news papers needs to cut me in
| for 30%, you can't demand special treatment.
|
| I could see Apple making an example out of Epic and banning
| them for life. You don't sneak in hidden functionality, and
| then flick it on via a server side command
| izacus wrote:
| > Don't want to pay the Apple tax, make your own phone.
|
| Oh, so the price of entry to the mobile app market is just:
| "creating your whole mobile device, mobile hardware, app
| ecosystem and operating system". Sounds simple and really in
| line with benefits that free market competition brings to
| users!
|
| Maybe we should put this in the physical world as well -
| anyone trying to open a new store on the corner with
| different margins needs to found its own town, build all the
| roads, complete all infrastructure and persuade people to mov
| e to this town.
| pb7 wrote:
| Bad analogy. All of that stuff is paid for by taxes. All of
| the stuff offered by Apple is paid for by hardware sales
| and software fees.
|
| You're closer to suggesting wanting to open a store in a
| town but refusing to pay property taxes, income taxes, and
| payroll taxes because you feel they're too high. You're
| welcome to go open your store somewhere else that doesn't
| have those taxes but presumably there won't be too many
| people that live there that would frequent your store and
| you know that.
| dlubarov wrote:
| > The government can not compel two companies to engage in a
| contract.
|
| It seems like there ought to be exceptions to prevent certain
| gatekeeping behavior. As a very extreme example, suppose a
| company bought up a set of private roads in such a way that
| without their roads, people in a certain area could not
| access the rest of the country. One would hope that the
| government would compel the gatekeeper to do business with
| everyone! (Perhaps with some reasonable fees, weight limits,
| etc.)
|
| Apple decided to insert themselves as a gatekeeper between
| iOS users and developers, so it shouldn't come as a surprise
| to them that deciding to "not engage" with some parties
| raises antitrust concerns, since it means blocking users and
| developers from engaging in mutually beneficial
| relationships.
| asou wrote:
| Everyone can access all the above the services via the
| original personal computing device, a PC.
|
| Other roads exists. If I have a private road, but 3 or 4
| other roads still go to the same place you can't drive over
| my gate since you feel like it
| bobbylarrybobby wrote:
| But apple didn't buy up anything preexisting -- they
| created the smartphone market from scratch and grew the
| user and developer base organically. You could argue that
| they leveraged their Mac developer base for this, but 1.
| the first iPhone didn't support third party apps and 2.
| there was nothing to leverage this developer base _against_
| because there was no smartphone market when the iPhone was
| released.
|
| Also, if we accept that smartphones are a necessity on par
| with roads, iPhones aren't the only smartphones, and
| Androids aren't really that inferior. As a user, if you
| don't like iPhones, get an Android. As a developer, if you
| don't like developing for iPhones, develop for Android. If
| either group feels like they can't leave for Android
| because iPhones are that much better, well, that's Apple's
| reward for creating a good device and growing its user- and
| developer bases -- should they really be punished for that
| success?
| ornitorrincos wrote:
| You make it sound as if there was no market for phone
| applications before the iphone, which at least in europe
| is not true.
|
| And the punishment would not be because a company
| succeeds, but because a company abuses its success
| position to stiffle competition and artificially placing
| their other offerings in a better place.
| damnyou wrote:
| In the world I inhabit, Apple is the one that intentionally
| makes it really hard to cancel subscriptions. You literally
| cannot cancel a subscription to an iOS app from an Android
| phone or Linux PC.
| asou wrote:
| You can't subscribe without an IOS Device , Mac or Windows
| PC.
|
| If your in some strange edge case where your subscribing to
| services and then discarding your IOS devices before
| canceling , that's on you. In a worst case scenario you
| could borrow a friend's Windows PC. As much as I love Linux
| I can't imagine most Linux users don't have at least one
| windows PC or Mac.
|
| If we really want to get technical, spin up an AWS
| instance, RDP into it, install iCloud for windows and then
| cancel your subscription.
| kemayo wrote:
| There are a few services you can sign up for without any
| of those... but Apple has a support page telling you how
| to unsubscribe from those from the devices you signed up
| from: https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT211011
|
| Said support page also says you can contact Apple Support
| about it, which I imagine would also work for the
| "canceling an arbitrary in-app subscription" issue.
| damnyou wrote:
| No, what the fuck? It's not "on me". It's on Apple to
| make it easy to cancel even if I no longer have an Apple
| product or Windows PC on hand.
|
| Borrow a friend's PC? Spin up an AWS Windows instance?
| Seriously, WTF?! I can cancel my Android subscriptions
| from anywhere with a web browser.
| asou wrote:
| It's not an intentional trick to force you to keep
| paying.
|
| The vast vast majority of people have access to a Windows
| PC or Apple product. How you ended up in this edge case
| I'll never know.
|
| To take this to it's logical conclusion, what if you
| don't run JavaScript on your browsers. Would they also
| need to give you a cancelation page which doesn't require
| JavaScript.
| Aldo_MX wrote:
| How about this? An email reminder N days in advance of
| the charge date with a cancel link.
|
| Companies get regulated for a reason, and facilitating
| the cancelation of subscriptions sounds reasonable to me.
| damnyou wrote:
| Apple does send those emails, but the link to unsubscribe
| simply doesn't work on Linux or Android. It's the most
| absurd thing.
| damnyou wrote:
| Of course you should be able to cancel without requiring
| JavaScript.
| Apocryphon wrote:
| Basecamp, Tile, Protonmail are also some big names listed in
| the site. Even Prepear, the fairly obscure company that ran
| afoul of Apple's aggressive trademark protection actions, is a
| founding member.
|
| I wonder if Telegram will join next. It's as if they rallied
| together every company that's had a news controversy with Apple
| this past year, at least the ones smaller than FANG.
| indigochill wrote:
| I agree Epic's arguing in bad faith, but I also don't see why
| Apple (and other App Store companies, like Google) need to have
| change legislated upon them (or why this is something that
| needs to be protested). Apple got to where they are by being a
| successful platform that attracted users and developers with
| their walled garden ethos. If in fact that walled garden is bad
| for users/developers, then there are competitors. If Apple
| users felt they were getting ripped off (or Apple developers
| felt it wasn't worth it to develop for Apple platforms) they
| could go to Windows or Linux/Android.
|
| The only way I can interpret this is that Epic & Friends see
| Apple has a nice cake which they now want to both have and eat.
| Given that Apple made the cake and there are other cakes, I
| think they're being entirely unfair to Apple. If Epic & Friends
| don't like Apple's rules, they're welcome to get off Apple's
| platform and focus on other platforms.
|
| I personally don't think it's worth developing for Apple
| platforms myself, but the argument that developers somehow
| -have- to develop for Apple platforms is nonsense (the AAA
| market for games on PC vs Mac makes this obvious). That's only
| true if you decide you have to reach those users, which is only
| true if you as the developer decide it's economically
| worthwhile, in which case you have implicitly agreed that
| Apple's terms are economically justifiable.
| lewdev wrote:
| "walled garden ethos" I like that. Apple is all about
| exclusivity and premium priced products. It seems like
| developers develop for them and consumers buy for them for
| that reason. But expecting Apple to be a free, fair, and open
| company, is really going against their business model.
| stephc_int13 wrote:
| As an actual game developer I can say that I am very happy to
| see this happening, and I know for a fact that this is the case
| of a very large number of devs.
| cblconfederate wrote:
| apparently neither does apple
| bluedevil2k wrote:
| > Happy to rip off their customers via in-game transactions.
|
| If people are happy and willingly buying skins, dances, and
| battle passes, that's not a rip-off.
| pb7 wrote:
| How is this different than "if developers are happy and
| willingly develop for iOS then [the fees] are not a rip-off"?
| bluedevil2k wrote:
| The developers _aren't_ happy. No one forces a Fortnite
| player to buy skins or emotes, Apple forces developers to
| pay the fee.
| pb7 wrote:
| No one is forcing them to develop for iOS. I will bet you
| dollars to donuts developers are _very_ happy about the
| money they make from iOS otherwise they wouldn 't be
| there.
| bluedevil2k wrote:
| > Otherwise they wouldn't be there
|
| They're on the App Store because they have no choice and
| they need to make money to pay for things like food,
| rent, etc.
|
| I'll bet you dollars to donuts if some regulation
| required Apple to allow App Stores from other companies,
| most developers would dump Apple's in a heartbeat.
| pb7 wrote:
| >They're on the App Store because they have no choice and
| they need to make money to pay for things like food,
| rent, etc.
|
| That's crazy how before 2008 no developer was able to pay
| for food and rent. Sounds dreadful. Too bad there's no
| alternative that has an even bigger share of the total
| mobile market. Come on, dude.
|
| >I'll bet you dollars to donuts if some regulation
| required Apple to allow App Stores from other companies,
| most developers would dump Apple's in a heartbeat.
|
| Right, the same way that most car companies would abandon
| emissions standards if the EPA no longer forced them to
| (see: Volkswagen emissions scandal). That doesn't make it
| a good thing for consumers.
| Aldo_MX wrote:
| > No one is forcing them to develop for iOS.
|
| The market is.
|
| You can not afford not to publish something on iOS, if
| iOS were a niche platform used only by 1% of users maybe,
| but it is a mainstream platform used by more than 40% of
| users in the US.
| pb7 wrote:
| I find it hard to believe that 100% of the market is the
| exact perfect amount that any given developer needs to
| sustain their business. 99% is already too little, and
| 60% is a non-starter. And yet this is the same market
| where tens to hundreds of companies have proliferated
| into billion dollar entities in mere years.
|
| It's nothing more than greed, just like the greed you
| supposedly fight against.
| Aldo_MX wrote:
| It's not greed to be in the platforms where your
| customers are. Otherwise companies wouldn't go to
| difficult stretches like supporting Internet Explorer.
|
| Denying business to your customers just because they're
| hostages of a greedy actor is not the best way to conduct
| a business.
| Apocryphon wrote:
| > iOS App Store 2018 revenue came to $46.6 billon, while
| Google Play revenue stood at $24.8 billion by this
| measure
|
| https://www.businessofapps.com/data/app-revenues/
|
| > Apple Users More Willing to Pay for Apps
|
| https://www.statista.com/chart/14590/app-downloads-and-
| consu...
|
| > The median iPhone app user earns $85,000 per year,
| which is 40% more than the median Android phone user with
| an annual income of $61,000. [...] The average in-app
| shopping check is four times higher for an iOS user!
| [...] iPhone owners are also more likely to make
| purchases on their phones on a regular basis. These are
| important considerations for both retail app developers
| and those seeking to monetize via paid apps or in-app
| purchase. Mobile ads are the main source of revenue
| generation in Android apps.
|
| https://buildfire.com/ios-android-users/
|
| > Distribution of free and paid apps in the Apple App
| Store and Google Play as of June 2020
|
| https://www.statista.com/statistics/263797/number-of-
| applica...
| pb7 wrote:
| Thank you for confirming what an incredible deal iOS
| developers are getting for a mere 30% fee. It sounds like
| Apple has created a really valuable platform that
| attracted wealthy customers compared to the competition
| and they should be rewarded for it.
| DivisionSol wrote:
| Er, no one is forcing any developer to make an app for
| iOS.
| bluedevil2k wrote:
| I see this type of comment a lot in these discussions on
| the App Store - "no one is forcing you to make an iOS
| app". No, no one is holding a gun to your head to make an
| iOS app. But you know what, people need to make money to
| pay the mortgage and feed their kids.
|
| If you're a programmer who has years of experience, who
| wants to make money in the field you have years of
| experience in, the field you likely enjoy doing and are
| good at, then _YES_ you are forced to make an app on iOS
| because that 's where the majority of the paying
| customers are.
|
| It's a bogus excuse to say "don't make an iOS app then".
| That's akin to telling a programmer "just learn to eat a
| little less".
| pb7 wrote:
| Oh no, won't someone think of the... talented and skilled
| white-collar worker in one of the hottest and highest
| paying industries of all time that can work literally
| anywhere? Enough with the appeals to emotion.
| bluedevil2k wrote:
| You're right, we should side with the multi-trillion
| dollar company that refuses to pay taxes on their multi-
| billion dollar profits.
| pb7 wrote:
| Apple, like every other company and individual, pays
| every dollar they owe and not a penny more. If this
| weren't the case, the IRS would be rolling up to their
| doorstep. If you don't like the tax laws, then petition
| them to be changed and I will support you.
|
| And yes, let's side with the company that became worth a
| trillion dollars by virtue of providing billions of
| people with devices and services that enrich their lives
| enough for them to shell over often times their last
| dollars. Not the company that peddles digital skins to
| children that only further glues them to their screens.
| hellotomyrars wrote:
| If someone commits a crime, like murder, but isn't
| convicted of it because a jury declared them innocent it
| doesn't change the fact that they did murder someone.
|
| Apple may get away with it because they can afford to
| spend millions on both lobbying and finding every way to
| avoid paying taxes that people without the same resources
| would otherwise pay, but that doesn't make it okay.
|
| We don't have to _side_ with either of these incredibly
| wealthy corporations having a money fight. They can both
| be criticized and we can demand better.
|
| Personally I love my iPhone/iPad because I truly feel
| they are the best mobile hardware available. For the same
| reason, I have 0 interest in the Mac ecosystem because
| it's objectively not the best hardware on the market.
| (Especially as a cost-conscious person). The wheels they
| sell for the Mac Pro are more expensive than the iPhone I
| bought from them (iPhone SE 2nd Gen). Absurd.
|
| I would like an officially sanctioned way to sideload
| onto my iPhone. I am in favor of court decision that
| would force them to allow you to bypass the walled
| garden. I think it's a very simple answer to the overall
| issue at hand. I doubt the majority of iOS users are
| going to bother with it if the functionality was there,
| and it solves the walled garden monopoly issue.
| bluedevil2k wrote:
| > Not the company that ... only further glues them to
| their screens.
|
| You're right again, Apple has no part at all in kids
| being glued to screens.
| Apocryphon wrote:
| You just responded to an appeal to emotion with an appeal
| to emotion.
| jeremiahlee wrote:
| 70% of Spotify's revenue goes to rights holders. That's not
| ripping off artists. Streaming royalties have been the largest
| segment of music rights holder revenue for several years.
|
| The record labels negotiated these deals and had all of the
| power. Also, all music streaming services have effectively the
| same deals. Spotify does not have preferential treatment.
|
| Artists can distribute their music without Spotify. Spotify
| cannot distribute its app to iOS users without Apple.
| TylerE wrote:
| That's more representative of how the market has imploded.
|
| There were 900M CDs sold in the US in 2000. This year that
| number will be less than 25M
| shadowgovt wrote:
| Imploded or transformed?
|
| Music consumption hasn't gone down. Consumption of physical
| media that I can't slip in my pocket has.
| TylerE wrote:
| Spending on music is vastly down.
|
| The RIAA publishes numbers - https://www.riaa.com/u-s-
| sales-database/
|
| Inflation adjusted we are down by over half from the
| peak.
|
| Subscription revenue is less that 30% of peak CD revenue.
| acruns wrote:
| Wouldn't that be the record companies though? I have heard
| Kanye is trying to get more money for artists but not really
| sure. I am puzzled why blockchain+streaming for music hasn't
| taken off. Artists would maintain rights and profits from
| what I can tell
| ticmasta wrote:
| Traditionally payment & accounting has never been a problem
| in the music business, so I think blockchain would not
| really help. The underlying economics is what has changed
| dramatically. Distribution is close to free, but unlike the
| ~ $1 an artist might have seen out of a CD sale (before
| discounting for costs & advances) they now see sub-cents on
| a single track. You used to pay $15-20 for an entire album
| to get 2 or 3 good songs; now you only stream everybody's
| top tracks and pay less than that a month. So the artist
| gets a couple of pennies for the period when they are hot,
| then nothing.
| rblatz wrote:
| Why would you put blockchain in this?
| damnyou wrote:
| For micropayments per stream, presumably.
| rmah wrote:
| Blockchain is not suitable for micropayments. The
| computing resource requirements are many orders of
| magnitude too high.
| damnyou wrote:
| A proof of work blockchain isn't suitable, but proof of
| work is one of many ways to reach distributed consensus.
| ticmasta wrote:
| 70% of an apple purchase goes to the app developer. That's
| not ripping off developers.
| christopherwxyz wrote:
| Apple doesn't charge itself a 30% fee when it competes with
| other developers for the same paying users.
| sithlord wrote:
| And you dont charge yourself what the lawn companies
| charge you to cut your yard. I don't really get your
| point.
| christopherwxyz wrote:
| Your example is faulty. No one pays you to cut your own
| lawn.
|
| People pay Apple to listen to Apple Music.
|
| People pay Apple to watch TV+.
|
| Other competitors have to pay 30% for every customer
| before they can even compete with their own product.
| criddell wrote:
| Spotify is complicated because the big record companies are
| also big shareholders. They have a conflict of interest.
|
| Also 70% doesn't mean anything without actual numbers. If
| they lowered their subscription to $1 / month and gave 80% to
| rights holders it wouldn't be an improvement.
|
| I'd be more interested if they reported how many plays per
| month it takes to earn as much as you would in a minimum wage
| job.
|
| Edit: I was curious about the minimum wage question so I
| looked it up.
|
| Assuming $15 / hour for minimum wage it would take 750,000
| streams on Spotify and 430,000 streams on Apple Music to earn
| the same in a month as you would working a minimum wage job.
|
| https://soundcharts.com/blog/music-streaming-rates-payouts
| gostsamo wrote:
| Many good things in history happened because bad people had
| interest of them happening. At hominem attacks does not
| invalidate a claim.
|
| P.S. I'm not downvoting but still trying to bring everyone down
| is a low-quality argument.
| singularity2001 wrote:
| No hominem was attached
| izacus wrote:
| Attacking a companny/person behind an argument for
| unrelated issues is a definition of "ad hominem".
| singularity2001 wrote:
| [deleted]
| roblabla wrote:
| They're the messenger. The idea behind an ad hominem is
| to attack the messenger instead of the message - whether
| the messenger is a human or corporation doesn't really
| matter. Who's behind the argument doesn't matter, if the
| argument is solid.
| mFixman wrote:
| All three allow games, music, and dating to happen outside of
| their platforms. The Apple equivalent would be Microsoft not
| allowing any program being installed from outside their store
| or Tinder closing down all bars in a city to lower competition.
| dleslie wrote:
| I can't sell my music streaming service on Spotify.
|
| I can't provide my own dating service on Tinder.
|
| I can't operate my own app store on EGS.
|
| Edit: what, I can't expect them to abide by their own demands
| of Apple?
| zepto wrote:
| What does apple not allow _outside_ it's platform? How would
| they even control that?
| Floegipoky wrote:
| There is nothing _but_ their platform- from the hardware,
| to OS, to app store, they're arguing that their platform
| encompasses an entire vertically-integrated business model.
| Microsoft got nailed for shipping their web browser with
| their OS (which users could easily replace), but it's fine
| for Apple to control all software a user can install? Take
| a monopoly and call it a platform, and it's fine? No. I
| have little love for Epic, but I'm glad somebody has the
| money to try to buy some law that will ultimately result in
| users having more control over the technology they depend
| on.
| 52-6F-62 wrote:
| > users having more control over the technology they
| depend on.
|
| Bit of a chicken/egg problem there isn't it?
|
| I bought the iOS device and depend on it being as locked
| down as it is--that's why I bought it.
|
| I wasn't force to choose an iOS device for any reason. If
| I depended on more openness I could have gone with an
| Android or other device.
|
| Do I depend on having a phone? Yes. Does it matter which
| one? No--the choice is there.
| Aldo_MX wrote:
| Prices, you are literally not allowed to offer cheaper
| prices outside the App Store.
| Ericson2314 wrote:
| Regardless what you think of Tik Tok, realize that if people
| controlled the installations on their phones they way they did on
| their desktops, I don't think the government would make the
| threat it is. The choke point of a single app store enables lots
| of things.
| WrtCdEvrydy wrote:
| Funny thing about a site that is about fairness that doesn't let
| me 'not accept' the cookie popup at the bottom. Is this even GDPR
| compatible?
| tobr wrote:
| The page is blocked by this message...
|
| > _We use cookies to give you the best possible experience on our
| website. By continuing to browse this site, you give consent for
| cookies to be used. For more details, please read our Cookie
| Policy._
|
| ...with the only option being _"I accept"_ (and by the way,
| you're not allowed to read the cookie policy without _first_
| accepting it. Christ).
|
| Honestly, this thoroughly undermines the message about "consumer
| freedom".
| KoftaBob wrote:
| Maybe i'm oversimplifying the issue, but this can be solved by
| requiring Apple and Google to allow other app stores to operate
| on their operating systems.
| candiddevmike wrote:
| Device freedom is a must. Any device should be completely
| controllable by the end user. There's two parts to this to me:
| app stores and the data collected by the devices. Users should
| have the freedom to install any software on their devices,
| period. Users should also have the freedom to stop all data
| collection by these devices. This applies to all electronics--
| video game consoles, TVs, printers, who knows what else in the
| future.
|
| If we keep letting manufacturers create these "walled gardens",
| we're not only creating a ton of trash because they will stop
| supporting them eventually, we're also stopping innovation and
| integration across platforms. Give me government mandated open
| protocols, open firmware, and let me install linux on my printer
| if I want. As devices get smarter, we should all reap the
| benefits of it through our own ingenuity and hacking.
| mailslot wrote:
| As a developer, a huge reason I don't mind walled gardens is
| the massive reduction in piracy. I'm glad people _want_ to
| download & pirate the apps I poured blood, sweat, and tears
| into... but I'm not down with theft. Each dollar I earn
| represents the time I've spent away from friends & family.
|
| I've worked on games that have been copied outright. All assets
| and artwork, but a new name and "publisher" being sold
| elsewhere. It eats into profits.
|
| When the walls come down, developers will be knocked off. This
| will hurt indys far more than larger companies, as "developers"
| opportunistically exploit the work of others.
|
| Apple & Google are great at reducing and shutting down this
| kind of activity. If people can install the Pirate Bay store
| and install anything for free, many folks will.
|
| If users can be coaxed into privileging an app, malware will
| control the majority of phones. People are _still_ falling for
| the Nigerian prince scam.
| mijamo wrote:
| All games on computer are piratable. On mobile they are not
| as easy to pirate as you noticed. Do you think the gaming
| environment is better on mobile? Are dev better paid on
| mobile? From what I have seen I could answer no to both, and
| would even say the walled garden is really really not helping
| indie devs break through on mobile.
|
| I see actually many ways in which devs are impacted : -
| discovery is basically null, both on Android and Apple. You
| need to just pay ads if you want people finding your game.
| Steam is much MUCH better at it. - you can't really have a
| good mod environment or a hackable game, which is very
| important for a lot of indie games - you cannot do some kinds
| of game. Right now that include gore and sexual games (see
| kawaii killer for instance) but also some other things like a
| weed growing simulator. Who knows what it will be tomorrow -
| as Google is going into gaming, and who knows maybe Apple at
| some point, you are basically on the hands of a competitor
| many times your size with no alternative
| Terretta wrote:
| Are devs better paid on Xbox than PC?
|
| That's a closer analogy.
| zepto wrote:
| This!
|
| Which is why I absolutely reject Epic et al's position.
|
| They want to be part of a small exclusive group of store owners
| who get to share in the benefits of Apple's investments.
|
| Very different from the device freedom you are calling for.
|
| It must also be said that device freedom cannot come at the
| cost of security and trust.
|
| I and presumably you, have the capability to make good
| decisions about what software to trust.
|
| Most people must delegate this to a trusted third party.
|
| I would support a legal requirement for iOS devices to have a
| bootcamp equivalent.
|
| That way Epic and whoever else wants to build their own
| platform would be free to do so.
| kodablah wrote:
| > They want to be part of a small exclusive group of store
| owners who get to share in the benefits of Apple's
| investments.
|
| Exclusive? Why can't I write an app store?
| zepto wrote:
| For the same reason you can't build a phone.
|
| You'll be competing with multi-billion dollar corporations
| who have exclusive content and nobody will bother with your
| store.
| kodablah wrote:
| > You'll be competing with multi-billion dollar
| corporations who have exclusive content and nobody will
| bother with your store.
|
| What does me building a store have anything to do with
| its adoption? I build lots of low/no-adoption software
| for fun or for small/personal use. This line of thinking,
| that if you can't be a top-level player in a competitive
| market, you can't build anything is foolish. You
| shouldn't confuse the building and marketing concepts,
| especially not to support disallowing the former.
| FreeFull wrote:
| On Android there is the F-Droid software repository, and
| there is no issue of competition with the Play Store.
| Would things be different on Apple phones?
| abc-xyz wrote:
| Android also have a lot of malware issues. I've had to
| help factory reset Android phones quite a few times
| because friends and family ended up getting spammed with
| sex notifications and had their search engine hijacked.
| Windows and OSX suffers from the same problems. The
| reason these platforms suffer from malware, while iOS
| does not, is because they allow third-party
| installations.
| FreeFull wrote:
| From what I've seen, the majority of Android malware
| either comes from Google's Play Store, or gets included
| on the phones by certain OEMs. F-droid in particular, due
| to its open source requirement, hasn't ended up hosting
| any malware so far.
| abc-xyz wrote:
| F-Droid is even more locked down than the App Store, and
| even if they turned it into the default app store then
| Android would still be riddled with malware.
|
| As to how the Android users keep acquiring malware, I
| have no idea whether it's from the Play Store, or if they
| download free apk files of paid apps, or if they download
| it through ads or from emails or whatever. I just know I
| have to help fix them regularly, and if iOS is forced to
| open up then iPhones will suffer from the same malware
| issues that you see with OSX/Windows/Android.
| zepto wrote:
| Developers can safely ignore the F-Droid store because it
| represents no significant market share.
|
| This will not be true of the stores that Epic, Facebook,
| and Google, and Amazon et al would start up on iOS.
| FreeFull wrote:
| F-Droid does not offer any form of payment, anyway. All
| the apps offered by F-Droid are open source and the
| majority of them ad-free, and it's honestly a fantastic
| resource for me. It actually has quite a lot of apps,
| including games, productivity tools, utilities, and other
| things. Something like this wouldn't be possible at all
| on Apple's platform.
| Apocryphon wrote:
| > As of June 2017, the Google Play store hit 3 million
| apps by 968,000 developers, trumping the Apple App Store.
| In comparison, the Amazon App Store only has around
| 600,000 apps by 75,000 publishers, as of Spring 2016.
|
| https://www.businessofapps.com/news/amazon-app-store-vs-
| goog...
|
| Interestingly, there appears to be more revenue made per
| user on the Amazon store than on Google Play:
|
| https://www.mobilemarketer.com/ex/mobilemarketer/cms/news
| /re...
| zepto wrote:
| I think this confirms my point.
|
| Note that as per Epic's other lawsuit, the Amazon App
| Store is working at a severe disadvantage to Google Play.
| Apocryphon wrote:
| It refutes your claim that developers will end up having
| to support alternate app stores or risk losing on market
| share. Despite the potential for greater revenue on the
| Amazon Appstore, developers don't seem to be flocking to
| it.
|
| People seem to be buying into Epic's own claims of self-
| importance. They may be the ones to have finally advanced
| grievances against the App Store to the lawsuit, but they
| do not- nor should they- have the ability to frame the
| entire discussion. Their standards for openness are
| debatable.
| zepto wrote:
| It doesn't really refute my claim. For one thing for most
| developer, Android is an afterthought in terms of
| profitability because of iOS, and for another, secondary
| app stores don't function on an equal footing with the
| play store, which is why Epic is also suing Google.
|
| Android just isn't a model for what would happen on iOS.
| Obvious really, because Android has never had anything
| like the same success in app sales.
| headmelted wrote:
| But that's not anti-competitive.
|
| All manner of well-funded corporations would be able to
| start app stores on mobile, and several (Epic,
| Valve/Steam, Microsoft) would start app stores the second
| they were able to.
|
| They'd also be competing for software - as there's a lot
| of fat that can be trimmed in those 30% margins.
|
| The competition, which would be fierce, is more than
| enough to solve the issue of price fixing.
| zepto wrote:
| Any fat trimmed in the margins (which is less than you
| think) would not accrue to developers because they'd have
| to deal with multiple stores and multiple rules sets.
|
| They also wouldn't have to offer the same terms to every
| developer. All they would need to do would be to lock in
| some exclusive popular apps. 'Competing for developers'
| doesn't mean making things better for all developers. It
| just means securing enough exclusives that people can't
| ignore your store.
| donmcronald wrote:
| IMHO there would be a large market for local stores that
| promote local apps. It would usher in an era of local
| discovery and decentralization. I think it would be a
| huge win for everyone except companies abusing the
| monopoly like characteristics of demand aggregation.
| headmelted wrote:
| "They want to be part of a small exclusive group of store
| owners who get to share in the benefits of Apple's
| investments"
|
| False.
|
| Epic made very clear, early on, _IN THEIR COURT FILING_ that
| their case was an attempt to legally force Apple and Google
| to allow for third party app stores to exist equitably on iOS
| and Android.
|
| Does that benefit Epic substantially? Of course it does. They
| want a mobile Epic Games Store on both platforms. But it
| would also break the stranglehold duopoly that Google and
| Apple have over the mobile software marketplace.
|
| Example to prove the point: Nothing in Epic's proposals or
| court filing would prevent Steam Mobile or the Microsoft App
| Store from launching on iOS and Android on the same terms
| that Epic prevailed on in court. That's about as far away
| from anti-competitive behaviour as this court case could
| possibly hope to be.
| zepto wrote:
| Nothing I said is false. Third party stores will not exist
| equitably on iOS and Android because there don't exist
| equitably anywhere else.
|
| I said a small group, not just Epic. That group would be
| made up of the usual suspects - Epic, Amazon, Google,
| Facebook, various other TenCent properties etc.
|
| Nothing about it would make it either developer friendly,
| nor consumer friendly.
| lern_too_spel wrote:
| Android is already both more developer friendly and more
| consumer friendly than iOS despite not having full
| automatic update support for third party app stores. If
| that were in place, it would be even better.
| zepto wrote:
| This is clearly not true. If it were, developers and
| consumers would prioritize Android.
| lern_too_spel wrote:
| As a developer and a user, I do prioritize Android.
|
| People don't buy luxury jeans because they are better
| jeans than Levi's. People buy luxury jeans because of
| marketing. The same applies here. Consider how many
| people in the HN comments say they like iPhone because of
| privacy even though it is so clearly worse for privacy
| (can't install an app on your device without telling
| Apple, can't get your GPS location without telling Apple,
| etc.).
| zepto wrote:
| Privacy is better on iOS because it's not about what goes
| to Apple - it's about what goes to 3rd parties.
|
| Also you seem to be just wrong. iOS doesn't inform Apple
| when apps make GPS location requests.
| gehatare wrote:
| In what way do consumers not prioritize Android devices?
| Android has about 75% market share.
| zepto wrote:
| Consumers do not prioritize Android devices as a market
| for buying apps. Android has 75% market share but iOS
| users have spent twice as much _in total_ on apps.
| donmcronald wrote:
| > Nothing about it would make it either developer
| friendly, nor consumer friendly.
|
| That doesn't sound too bad to me from either side TBH. As
| a developer, it would be useful to have a choice between
| multiple publishers with the advantage of only needing to
| deal with one at a time instead of three. I also think
| competition in app stores would spur a bunch of
| innovation.
|
| As a consumer with an Android phone, a Windows PC, and an
| iPad as a tablet, the idea of buying all my stuff from
| one company's app store and having the licensing work
| across all 3 devices is extremely appealing.
|
| I think one of the biggest fears of Apple, Google, etc.
| is that it's very possible someone will come along and
| build a better app store with better policies for both
| developers and consumers.
|
| Here's a concrete example of "better". Judging by this
| [1] apps in iOS 14 can specify a DoH resolver to use for
| DNS.
|
| > Apps will be able to specify a DoH resolver that will
| override the DNS resolver set by DHCP or RA for queries
| made from their app.
|
| Guess what that means? Apple is going to let developers
| override MY choice as a network admin and DoH is going to
| be used for un-blockable ads. Why should they be able to
| do that? I would absolutely buy into an app store that
| forbid that behavior and forced apps to observe DHCP
| settings over app settings.
|
| I'd also be fine with an app store that didn't force the
| use of sign in with Apple or Apple Pay. And that's where
| the problem is for Apple. Forcing developers to use Apple
| technologies isn't benefitting anyone but Apple. You
| might argue that it's better for consumers, but if those
| are features wanted by developers' customers, developers
| will add them without being forced to.
| zepto wrote:
| I don't see what would allow developers to only deal with
| one publisher at a time.
|
| If each one commands a significant percentage of user
| attention, you'll have to deal with them all.
| bogwog wrote:
| > Which is why I absolutely reject Epic et al's position.
|
| > They want to be part of a small exclusive group of store
| owners who get to share in the benefits of Apple's
| investments.
|
| Can you clarify what you mean by this?
| judge2020 wrote:
| https://www.reuters.com/article/us-apple-epic-games/apple-
| sa...
| bogwog wrote:
| I don't see how that's relevant. Epic isn't suing Apple
| so that they can have exclusive rights to open a second
| app store, they're suing to allow third-party app stores
| in general. If Epic wins, they aren't going to be part of
| a small group of store owners; anyone would be able to
| open their own competing store.
| zepto wrote:
| Almost no stores will be able to compete with Facebook,
| Google, Amazon, etc, who already have giant reach and
| network effects,
|
| Consumers will have to deal with them all, as will
| developers.
|
| There will be a small group of store owners.
| bogwog wrote:
| > Almost no stores will be able to compete with Facebook,
| Google, Amazon, etc, who already have giant reach and
| network effects,
|
| First of all, that is not true at all.
|
| And second, even if it were true, it'd be a far better
| situation for developers than the current status quo.
| zepto wrote:
| Having to deal with multiple stores would be strictly
| worse for developers than the current situation.
| matwood wrote:
| And worse for consumers. No way I'm dealing with entering
| my CC again and again. The current situation is not
| perfect, but it does have advantages for both consumers
| and developers.
| donmcronald wrote:
| Really?
|
| Microsoft, Amazon, Google, and Apple already have my CC
| number. If I could buy all my apps through (ex:) the
| Microsoft store that exists on PC, Android, and iOS I
| could delete my CC info from Google and Apple. That's a
| win in my book.
|
| Maybe the competition would force all of them to innovate
| a bit. Wouldn't it be nice if you could give your CC
| number, but set a hard limit on in-app purchases? Ex:
| Here's my CC, but you're not allowed to charge more than
| $50 / month to it. I bet there are a lot of people that
| have gotten multi thousand dollar IAP bills that wouldn't
| mind a better system for some of that stuff.
| judge2020 wrote:
| So if Apple had entertained the original pre-lawsuit
| request, would epic have fought until Apple allowed app
| stores other than Epic and Apple existing?
| lern_too_spel wrote:
| What does it matter? They're fighting for something that
| benefits everybody (except Apple) now.
| zepto wrote:
| There is no evidence that what they are fighting for
| would benefit anyone other than a small group of already
| rich companies.
| lern_too_spel wrote:
| There is plenty of evidence from Android that it would
| benefit both users and developers.
| zepto wrote:
| Android is not a model for this. Stores on Android simply
| don't have equal footing with the play store.
|
| Epic is suing Google too over this.
| 52-6F-62 wrote:
| The logical conclusion then is that the only device that should
| be allowed to be manufactured is a personal computer.
|
| Companies producing specialized hardware/software couplings
| does not preclude another company developing open options.
|
| I usually choose an open option for most of what I do but when
| it comes to some mindless gaming or my phone that I use for
| some sensitive matters I _want_ them limited in their scope in
| a big way.
|
| I don't understand this all-or-nothing argument that seems to
| be made when it doesn't reflect the reality of the situation.
| kodablah wrote:
| > The logical conclusion then is that the only device that
| should be allowed to be manufactured is a personal computer.
|
| Nah, the capabilities can be limited, just not artificially
| so. I understand there is a bunch of nuance in that statement
| that we can get lost in discussing, but the brief salient
| point is "if the manufacturer can do something to my device,
| then they should not add restrictions for me to try to do it
| also". We don't need to get lost in the what-ifs that such
| freedom discussions often devolve into.
| wvenable wrote:
| > does not preclude another company developing open options.
|
| Agreed. But they don't. I think this the point of government
| intervention to require or provide incentive to do something
| which benefits society even if it doesn't benefit the
| company.
|
| Automobile safety and emissions limits comes to mind for me.
| zepto wrote:
| Perhaps they would if they didn't think they could prevail
| through antitrust legislation.
| jlokier wrote:
| > The logical conclusion then is that the only device that
| should be allowed to be manufactured is a personal computer.
|
| I would be comfortable with a high quality legal encoding of
| the Your Device principle:
|
| "To the extent a device, or part of a device, behaves like a
| general purpose computer or could easily and reasonably be
| made to behave that way if not for artificial restrictions
| placed upon it by a vendor, the effective owner(s) of the
| device or part shall have the right to use and control the
| general purpose computer aspects as they deem appropriate."
|
| "Effective owner means those using the device as if they own
| it, so where a device is technically rented or licensed from
| a vendor, the renter or licensee is deemed the effective
| owner for application of this principle".
|
| Details of what that means in practice for non-obvious edge
| cases would be fleshed out by precedent and the courts I
| guess.
|
| It would not limit what devices can be manufactured, but it
| would place a requirement of access and control on some kinds
| of devices.
| rimliu wrote:
| The common misconception of HN crowd: assumption that everyone
| are like them and actually want complete control. There is a
| nontrivial cost to having that control and not many actually
| want it. They want something that works and is useable.
| ta8964586 wrote:
| Genuinely curious, how would you give users "the freedom to
| stop all data collection by these devices" without some kind of
| walled garden. Is the solution something like flatpack for all
| apps? but then how do you make sure all apps don't just refuse
| to work without permission to collect data or manage to collect
| information without users knowing? You can't force developers
| to be honest about what their app does without having a means
| to prevent it from being installed. Specifically for apps, I
| can't think of a solution that has no restrictions of software
| installations, but wouldn't be trivially turned into an
| incredibly user hostile environment.
| Barrin92 wrote:
| > I can't think of a solution
|
| because you're only thinking of technical solutions. A
| comprehensive privacy framework that requires explicit user
| consent to data collection and gives user transparent
| controls accomplishes just that, without having to resort to
| user-hostile or complicated tech.
| vorpalhex wrote:
| You can monitor what calls an app makes. LittleSnitch on Mac
| is an example example of this.
|
| There are going to be nefarious actors who still manage to
| bypass it, and there are going to be risks outside of a
| walled garden - and that's a meaningful choice we can provide
| users.
|
| "Hey, you can stay inside the app store and get these
| promises, or you can install what you want and risk X, Y and
| Z."
|
| Android does this.. decently well. There are issues with the
| google framework, but otherwise it's functional - my elderly
| family doesn't need me to reset their phones every month, yet
| I can sideload all my games and FOSS apps.
| mullingitover wrote:
| > Device freedom is a must. Any device should be completely
| controllable by the end user.
|
| I have the choice of buying a completely controllable android
| device if I want to install mystery apps willy-nilly. I'm not
| interested in that, and there are millions like me. I want a
| locked-down device that keeps developers in check.
|
| This situation is much like the browser nightmares of the past,
| where Firefox users complained that the browser was slow.
| People didn't really take into account that the slowness wasn't
| fault of Firefox, but of the zillion janky browser extensions
| people freely installed. Chrome came along, and people were
| wowed by how fast it was, not realizing it was 'fast' because
| they hadn't installed 47 browser extensions yet. Apple doesn't
| want to be Firefox, and I don't blame them.
|
| I want my phone to be like a Nintendo, I don't really care
| about the freedom to install any random code I download (even
| though I really could if I wanted to install something I built
| locally with XCode). First and foremost I _want_ developers to
| be terrified of getting their publishing privileges yanked if
| they step out of line.
| luhn wrote:
| > This situation is much like the browser nightmares of the
| past, where Firefox users complained that the browser was
| slow. People didn't really take into account that the
| slowness wasn't fault of Firefox, but of the zillion janky
| browser extensions people freely installed. Chrome came
| along, and people were wowed by how fast it was, not
| realizing it was 'fast' because they hadn't installed 47
| browser extensions yet.
|
| Not really relevant to your point, but Chrome was
| legitimately faster than Firefox for a long time. It wasn't
| just extension bloat, V8 was a huge leap in JS speed and
| Chrome optimized the hell out of rendering. Firefox wasn't
| able to bridge that gap until their recent Quantum
| initiative.
| nwienert wrote:
| So, let's apply this same logic to accessibility. Let's say
| the government says "devices must have voice over
| functionality". Ok, great. Apple puts that as an option, and
| we're done.
|
| The same applies for if the government said "you have a right
| to install apps of your choice". Apple adds a setting in the
| settings menu. You still get your locked down device by
| default, and much like blind people, people who care about
| controlling their device are given that option, too.
|
| What you're arguing is akin to saying, "I'm not blind, so
| Apple shouldn't ever even have a Voice Over option, because
| it's not my preference, even if it's just in the settings".
|
| There's a false dichotomy - Apple can still keep it locked
| down _by default_. You still get your device just as safe and
| sound. And much like accessibility settings, most people
| wouldn't bother to find the setting, and if they did, they
| would have a big warning (and of course Apple could have
| another big warning on every install, as well as keep all
| their sand boxing and permissions access rules active).
|
| There's no loser here. If grandma digs deep into the settings
| and ignores multiple warnings, it seems she is proficient
| enough to take on the risk. Forcing blind people to not have
| any voice over because grandma may accidentally turn it on
| and have a bad outcome is a weak argument.
| auggierose wrote:
| you cannot apply the same logic to something entirely
| different
| threeseed wrote:
| Apps will simply require users to enable this "unlock
| device" setting.
|
| And people just do whatever the app says since they assume
| Apple has vetted it.
| Terretta wrote:
| Except that DRM is legal, and Apple devices are consoles /
| appliances: "What's a computer?"
| moenzuel wrote:
| Isn't one of the points Epic is suing Google for because
| Google has a ton of warnings when side loading? I'm curious
| if there is a middle ground where grandma is protected but
| developers don't feel they are described as potential
| malware.
| mullingitover wrote:
| > The same applies for if the government said "you have a
| right to install apps of your choice".
|
| I don't like the idea that the government can force you to
| build things you don't want to build. If I don't want to
| build a general purpose computing device, why should the
| government be able to force me to?
|
| There's a compelling argument for requiring building in
| handicapped-accessible features, but that is relevant to
| the equal protection clause of the constitution. There's no
| implied constitutional right to general-purpose computing.
| madrox wrote:
| I think that was an analogy where Apple was the
| government
| dml2135 wrote:
| I may be mistaken, but I'm pretty sure it is relevant to
| the Americans with Disabilities Act, not the
| Constitution.
| giantrobot wrote:
| You're not going to get open firmware. Cell phones are radio
| transceivers in the hands of millions of unlicensed users. The
| _only_ reason any of the cellular infrastructure works is all
| the devices run tested and certified firmware.
|
| For most cellular basebands the PHY is more powerful and
| capable than the regulations would normally allow. They only
| get certified for consumer use because the firmware bounds the
| operation to the regulated envelopes.
|
| No devices would ever be allowed to be sold on the consumer
| market if end users could go tweak the firmware or run
| uncertified firmwares. They _shouldn 't_ be allowed to be sold.
| The difference between a transmitter and jammer is a pretty
| fine line.
| therealx wrote:
| True, but anyone mildly determined can get a two year old
| device, 0day the baseband, and have full access. I remember
| old iOS exploits that gave access to the full baseband as
| well.
| sneak wrote:
| If users didn't want these things, users wouldn't buy them.
|
| For the vast majority of people, and iPhone is way, way better
| than a computer that can run any app, precisely _because_ it
| can't run any app they click on.
|
| I'm a hacker, so I would love to be able to install any
| software I want on my iPhone, and introspect it in other ways.
|
| Most users, however, would have a way worse experience using
| their phone if they were given this option, because a non-
| trivial percentage of them would follow the tutorials online
| provided to them by malware authors to install their malware.
|
| This is precisely what happened to desktop computers. Has
| everyone forgotten about Bonsai Buddy?
|
| People who want a general purpose, configurable device that can
| run any code they want on it have options. They're big, clunky,
| out of date phones.
|
| Apple is being punished for their success here. They happen to
| make the best phone hardware at the moment, and they bundle the
| best phone hardware with cryptographically-enforced editorial
| decisions about the best software that runs on it.
|
| I think the real danger here is that of censorship: if the
| state commands Apple to delete (or actively remote-disable)
| certain apps, a huge problem exists. Today it's WeChat or
| TikTok. What if tomorrow it's Signal? iMessage's encryption has
| already been backdoored for the feds in the default
| configuration via iCloud Backup (which is not end to end
| encrypted and backs up the entirety of chat history from the
| device to Apple each night). The state could literally command
| Apple to prohibit any type of secure communication from the
| device via this method and they'd have to comply, and iPhone-
| owners would have no recourse due to the DRM. _That's_ the real
| danger.
|
| There's a real argument to not allowing Apple to do this, but I
| don't think "consumer choice" is it. Consumer choice chose the
| walled garden over the anarchy of Desktop Computer Malware.
| [deleted]
| systemvoltage wrote:
| Your style of thinking cannot be popular on HN, but we all
| know why this is good for the consumer - in this day and age,
| businesses will completely rip apart the consumer in every
| which way. They'll not miss a chance to fuck the consumer's
| privacy, financial state, psychology, innocence and
| addiction.
|
| HN crowd wants something they can run sudo on. But people
| here have not got a slighest idea of how to run a device for
| close to a billion+ people.
| sneak wrote:
| > _Your style of thinking cannot be popular on HN, but we
| all know why this is good for the consumer - in this day
| and age, businesses will completely rip apart the consumer
| in every which way. They 'll not miss a chance to fuck the
| consumer's privacy, financial state, psychology, innocence
| and addiction._
|
| Apple is among the worst offenders here, too. They
| expressly permit all sorts of embedded spyware in almost
| every single app in their App Store, and their view is that
| you agreed and consented to it when you accepted the
| iOS/App Store Terms of Service.
|
| They could build platform security features like Little
| Snitch into the OS to allow users to prevent it, but they
| don't.
|
| They could make App Store rules to keep apps from spying on
| you when you use them, but they don't.
|
| They could end to end encrypt device backups, so the US
| military and FBI couldn't read all of your iMessage history
| whenever they want without a warrant or probable cause, but
| they don't. (In fact, they were going to, but then
| specifically stopped.[1])
|
| The "Apple respects user privacy" story is just brand
| marketing, not reality.
|
| [1]: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-apple-fbi-icloud-
| exclusiv...
| systemvoltage wrote:
| Thanks for providing the source about encrypted backups,
| that's chilling.
|
| Can you provide sources for other claims in your
| comments? I want to read up more on what sorts things
| these apps do.
|
| Apple is by far the best when it comes to privacy
| _relative_ to the others. Would you trust Microsoft,
| Google, or literally any other company (even Canonical
| Ubuntu) more than Apple?
| headmelted wrote:
| Wrong. Completely.
|
| The vast majority of people you're talking about don't
| realise they're having their prices jacked up with taxes or
| their options curtailed by Apple. They just assume the App
| Store is where you get the apps because it's been programmed
| into them over the last 12 years.
|
| Allowing third party app stores doesn't change the API or
| permissions system already baked into the OS. If Epic wants
| to start an App Store with lax policies then if you and Apple
| are right about the value of their policies then that'll
| become apparent quickly enough and will still be a selling
| point of the App Store.
|
| This is nothing like what happened with desktop computers,
| where the security model had to be welded on after the horse
| had already bolted. Windows (just as an example) wouldn't
| allow blanket admin permissions to software if there was a
| way to stuff the legacy software genie back in it's bottle.
| Unfortunately fixing permissions retrospectively would break
| a multitude of legacy software that hasn't been updated in
| years, in some cases decades.
|
| Apple is _not_ being punished for success, and you don 't
| understand the problem or the legal case, which is entirely
| not at all related to Apple protecting or not protecting
| their users from pop-up ads.
|
| Consumer choice didn't _chose_ anything. Most phone users don
| 't even understand that they _are_ in a walled garden.
|
| tldr; This isn't The Beach, it's The Truman Show.
| sneak wrote:
| > _Allowing third party app stores doesn 't change the API
| or permissions system already baked into the OS._
|
| It does precisely that. Apple invests huge amounts of money
| into people and infrastructure to ensure that exploit code
| (that can subvert platform security) never makes it into
| the store or gets signed by Apple. If it does, they can
| immediately revoke it.
|
| Third parties providing app downloads would not invest the
| anywhere near same level of care, for the most part.
| Platform security can only do so much if you can run any
| code you want to try to attack it.
| headmelted wrote:
| But you _cant_ run any code you want. You're still in a
| restrictive sandbox, and you still need to explicitly
| request the limited expansions to the permissions scope
| that the OS allows the user to grant you - neither of
| which is dependent on the App Store.
| bad_good_guy wrote:
| Its a lot simpler than users wanting a device that 'cant run
| any app they click on'.
|
| The vast vast majority of users don't consider anything
| except the marketing. And apple is good at marketing. So
| people want iOS devices.
| pb7 wrote:
| Marketing only works for the first generation of purchases.
| Apple has the highest consumer satisfaction ratings year
| after year so when a new product comes out, consumers know
| they will get a product they will be really happy with.
| That is not the case with many other companies.
| damnyou wrote:
| Yes, this is partly about Apple being "punished" for its
| success. That is a _good_ thing. Entities that are too
| successful become too powerful and _should_ be "punished"
| for it.
| panragon wrote:
| I have this discussion nearly daily when talking with Android
| users. The iPhone is not a modular unit that can be tampered
| with at all, but despite even being a software developer, I
| do not actually care about my phone being modular. I want it
| to work and I want it to work well across the entire
| platform. Not only does iOS severely limit your options for
| changing your phone's UX, something a lot of people lament
| about quite often, but they also have rigorous design-guides
| that push every developer in the eco-system to have it look
| the same way. Something as simple as the date/timepickers
| that Apple removed in iOS 14 can't be changed by the user,
| but Apple does their hardest to make sure everyone makes it
| look the way they've set it up, and for my purposes I
| legitimately prefer that over deciding it myself but having
| the apps on the platform ultimately use either or willy-
| nilly.
|
| There definitely are issues with Apple, but the user not
| having full access to changing their device isn't really one,
| and that's coming from someone who most definitely has the
| know how to do pretty much anything and still remain safe,
| I'd dread to see users be stuck having full root access to
| their phones without even knowing what the fuck that means.
|
| There absolutely needs to be options for those that want to
| be able to hack away at their phone to their hearts content,
| but it doesn't need to be _every_ phone, and Apple aren 't
| criminals just because they don't offer that possibility and
| users happen to want their phones anyway.
|
| Please don't give me root access to my iPhone, I do not care
| about it, I have no need for it, and I do not want it.
| stale2002 wrote:
| > Please don't give me root access to my iPhone, I do not
| care about it, I have no need for it, and I do not want it
|
| Then don't turn on root mode?
|
| Nobody will force you to do anything, if I am given the
| option of easilu turning on root mode, and you can simply
| choose to not turn that on.
| ratww wrote:
| _> Nobody will force you to do anything_
|
| My previous bank forced installation of a rootkit in
| Windows and Mac, and required full permissions in Android
| just to open. Their website didn't even work in Linux
| because they didn't make a Rootkit.
|
| I didn't really have an option at the time: this was
| before my government made a law allowing you to use any
| bank, so I needed the bank to access my salary.
|
| I'm all for freedom of fully owning your own device, but
| the reality is that software developers and software
| companies will abuse this freedom.
| sixstringtheory wrote:
| Once root mode is an option it will be exploited. The
| weakest link in software systems is often a human.
| lern_too_spel wrote:
| The number of steps and warnings required to unlock the
| bootloader on an Android device is so large that I have
| never heard of anybody being tricked into it. On the
| other hand, iOS is so rife with rootable vulnerabilities
| that it's becoming too cheap to meter.
| judge2020 wrote:
| Replace tricked with lured. Try searching 'free vbucks
| apk android 6' on youtube then go to page 3 of results or
| click recently uploaded.
| lern_too_spel wrote:
| You cannot unlock your bootloader with an APK. This is
| the process for unlocking the bootloader:
| https://www.androidjungles.com/unlock-bootloader-using-
| fastb...
|
| No amount of luring is going to make somebody go through
| that only to have their device data completely wiped as
| the warning clearly says.
| spideymans wrote:
| Follow this tutorial for awesome new wallpapers!
|
| Step 1: Open settings > Tap 'enable root mode'
| greycol wrote:
| You're not wrong. I also understand the viewpoint
| stemming from that truth that having the option is not
| worth the extra features. I still think the trade off is
| worth it.
|
| Just like while we have people tricked into buying apple
| gift cards for scammers we still don't decide to ban
| those cards because they do offer utility.
| panragon wrote:
| I'm all for people wanting rootmode, I just don't want
| more freedom and choice on my device, I see no need for
| it and I like the way Apple can streamline everything by
| forcing everyone to interact with their device on their
| terms.
|
| And obviously I realize that this doesn't go for
| everyone, and that's completely _okay_. I just don't
| think Apple should be forced to make their phones into
| full-on computers just because some people say they want
| the choice, when you could just as easily get a phone. If
| most customers really wanted to root iPhones Apple would
| probably have implemented it by now. I don't believe for
| a second that Apple's desire to unilateraly control their
| ecosystem trumps shareholder greed, why would it?
|
| Not all phones are for everyone and I think that's OK.
| More options and more modular devices means everyone will
| setup and use their device differently, like with a
| computer, this is fine for many, but I think it would
| adversly affect the streamlined nature of iOS (even if it
| is 'just an option'), so I'm still against it.
| leetcrew wrote:
| in a vacuum, there's really nothing wrong with apple's
| choices regarding iOS. as far as I can tell, most iOS
| users really do appreciate how the whole system is locked
| down, or at least don't understand why they should care.
|
| what sucks is that in the big picture, there's really no
| viable option for someone who cares about
| security/privacy and is willing to pay for a premium
| device, but wants full access to their phone
| occasionally. the security update situation on android is
| still a mess except for the pixel line (which usually has
| subpar hardware) and a handful of other flagship devices.
| even if you're willing to pony up, you're still buying
| into an ecosystem that's designed to exfiltrate data from
| your device. it's frustrating because the iphone is so
| close to having everything I want from a device. if I
| could just have the ability to temporarily elevate
| privileges, even from some obnoxiously buried menu deep
| in the settings (or bootloader), I would buy one in a
| heartbeat.
| tshaddox wrote:
| > The iPhone is not a modular unit that can be tampered
| with at all, but despite even being a software developer, I
| do not actually care about my phone being modular. I want
| it to work and I want it to work well across the entire
| platform.
|
| I'm precisely in this boat. I enjoy playing with
| electronics, but I want my microwave to just work. I also
| enjoy fiddling around with PCs with total freedom, but I
| want my phone to just work.
| javier2 wrote:
| I am also a developer, I love tinkering, but my router
| and especially my phone, I want it to just work. I need
| my phone, if I could tinker with my phone it would be
| broken half the time!
| tshaddox wrote:
| Haha yes, I used to do all the WRT54G stuff and tended to
| have bugs and an overheated router. I also used to tinker
| a bunch with jailbroken iPhones and rooted Android
| phones. I'll never have anything against that, but now I
| personally want an option that just works!
| flenserboy wrote:
| Apple's advertising is built on security and privacy --
| allowing other App Stores on their system would only open up
| users to invasive tracking & attacks. I want my desktop
| system to be open as can be; I'm perfectly happy with my
| phone being (somewhat) locked down. That said, Apple could
| allow users to choose to install other App Stores on their
| devices, but at the cost of their devices being considered
| hopelessly compromised and no longer eligible for support
| from Apple. Let the market decide: a wider variety of
| games/apps, or a (fairly) secure system with attached privacy
| promises.
| freedomben wrote:
| > _Apple 's advertising is built on security and privacy --
| allowing other App Stores on their system would only open
| up users to invasive tracking & attacks._
|
| But why? If sideloading requires explicit user action and
| acknowledgment of danger, why would this affect their brand
| of safety and privacy in any way? The users who want a safe
| controlled environment can easily choose to stay in that
| environment. I just do not understand this argument.
| edmundsauto wrote:
| Because these users, regardless of what they previously
| clicked, will expect Apple to support it. And end to end
| support is kind of one of the big deals about the iPhone.
| shagie wrote:
| (supporting this point)
|
| You can see this sort of thing in an old post by Joel on
| https://www.joelonsoftware.com/2004/06/13/how-microsoft-
| lost...
|
| This references an even older blog post (that has been
| lost to time) which was quoted:
|
| > Look at the scenario from the customer's standpoint.
| You bought programs X, Y and Z. You then upgraded to
| Windows XP. Your computer now crashes randomly, and
| program Z doesn't work at all. You're going to tell your
| friends, "Don't upgrade to Windows XP. It crashes
| randomly, and it's not compatible with program Z." Are
| you going to debug your system to determine that program
| X is causing the crashes, and that program Z doesn't work
| because it is using undocumented window messages? Of
| course not. You're going to return the Windows XP box for
| a refund. (You bought programs X, Y, and Z some months
| ago. The 30-day return policy no longer applies to them.
| The only thing you can return is Windows XP.)
|
| This is the same sort of thing that Apple faces with iOS.
| If an application breaks when the system is upgraded, it
| is the system's fault - not the application (at least in
| the minds of many consumers) and it is also considered to
| be the responsibility of the operating system vendor to
| fix the problem.
|
| (This is part of why the Catalina upgrade was such a big
| deal because it was known that they'd break a lot of
| things in doing that)
|
| If someone gets an app from a hypothetical 3rd party
| vendor store, and it breaks on an update of the operating
| system (or allows you to download an app that doesn't
| run) - its seen as company that wrote the OS's fault even
| though there is nothing that the company that wrote the
| OS can do about it - they can't even refund the app.
| freedomben wrote:
| I appreciate the dialog. I'm still struggling with it
| though and I'm wondering if we have different premises.
| This seems like it assumes that users are complete
| buffoons, and aren't capable of understanding a simple
| message like, "if you enable this feature, you open
| yourself up to possible security holes. Apple also makes
| no guarantees that software installed in this way will
| work, either now or in the future."
|
| At a minimum it seems like the system is designed around
| the lowest common denominator of user at the expense of
| more power users.
| ratww wrote:
| But it's not just users that have this behavior. There
| was major outcry from some developers about Apple
| removing Carbon even after 12 years of deprecation and no
| updates. There was a lot of support from developer-
| centric community like HN. An example: [1]
|
| Considering that even developers are not too
| understanding, it's no wonder people assume non-tech
| people will react the same way.
|
| I really don't see a good solution for that. Even if
| Apple open sourced Carbon, I doubt Carbon users would be
| able pick up the slack, since they had 12 years to update
| but couldn't (or 20 if you consider Carbon was _always_
| marketed as a stopgap /compatibility solution).
|
| [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21164005
| shagie wrote:
| I used to work tech support at a big tech company. I have
| little faith in the technical literacy of people outside
| of those who have specifically studied the issue and done
| an informed risk analysis on what they want to do.
|
| I feel (especially in today's world) that people are too
| willing to accept risks that put themselves and others in
| danger without being informed of the implications or that
| they maintain a "yea, it will never happen to me"
| attitude.
|
| That willingness to take risks is especially prevalent in
| younger demographics. With respect to fortnight when Epic
| was doing a "disable this check and load from another
| site" there were numerous copies of the software with
| malware installed because people were ignoring the risk
| and looking at what they have.
| https://www.theguardian.com/games/2018/aug/10/fortnite-
| on-an...
|
| If you are a power user, and want those features,
| jailbreaking the phone and doing whatever you want to it
| is an option. Or maybe, not using an iDevice and going
| with something that is more open.
|
| There are a lot more people out there that want the
| training wheels on their technology experience than there
| are power users.
|
| Personally, after having a linux system that I built
| myself and compiled kernel patches for back in the day -
| I'm glad I have the experience and I'm quite happy to let
| Apple do that now and not have to spend time on that
| level of verification of software and administration of
| my own devices.
|
| On the phone itself - I've got lots of personal
| information, credit cards tied into NFC, email, and IoT
| controls. And while I'm not going to take risky actions
| with my phone, I am confident that others will take those
| risks. As part of Apple's brand identity is privacy and
| security - allowing people to take those risks works
| against that brand identity.
|
| One of the frequent comments on HN in the past is "HN may
| not be the targeted demographic."
| ratww wrote:
| _> One of the frequent comments on HN in the past is "HN
| may not be the targeted demographic."_
|
| I saw a similar comment here before that made sense to
| me: _" The more Apple distanced itself from power users,
| the more money they made"_.
| [deleted]
| edmundsauto wrote:
| Except Apple is obsessed with taking responsibility for the
| entire user experience. Also, as people experience the
| subpar user experience w other app stores, they will still
| bring it to Apple for support. And probably blame apple -
| "it's their logo on the cover".
|
| Consumer behavior is not intelligent.
| samsquire wrote:
| Yes, it is intelligent. In aggregate the market is
| intelligent.
| xlii wrote:
| Isn't this what's the Jailbreak is about?
|
| You can jailbreak device, Apple still will have to respect
| the guarantee but they don't have to support you
| whatsoever.
|
| Sure, Apple patch it, but then those are true
| vulnerabilities that are used to jailbreak it. Maybe they
| should just have a switch somewhere that would go "enable
| unsupported mode" that'd show a lot of angry texts at you
| before allowing you to do that.
|
| That'd solve most of the coalition claims probably. Epic
| can always put their software on Cydia...
| uryga wrote:
| > If users didn't want these things, users wouldn't buy them.
|
| doesn't follow. people buying a thing despite _flaw X_ just
| means don 't consider _X_ a dealbreaker, not that they
| actually want _X_
| Razengan wrote:
| ..What? If X isn't a dealbreaker, then obviously customers
| are fine with X.
|
| If they weren't, it would be a dealbreaker.
| teddyh wrote:
| There is a vast gulf of nuance between "fine" and
| "dealbreaker".
| Razengan wrote:
| If it's a """dealbreaker""" then you're not okay with it.
|
| If it's not a dealbreaker then you're okay with it.
|
| How many different ways do you want to twist this?
|
| If any of this mattered to anyone outside this echo
| chamber then Apple wouldn't constantly come at #1 in
| customer surveys.
| sixstringtheory wrote:
| And that gulf is different for everyone. You can't
| dictate it to others.
| simion314 wrote:
| >Most users, however, would have a way worse experience using
| their phone if they were given this option, because a non-
| trivial percentage of them would follow the tutorials online
| provided to them by malware authors to install their malware.
|
| I think Apple fans exagerrate when they say that most users
| are so "inexperienced" to get taken advantage off.
|
| - this number of completly inexperienced user is not proven
| to be as large, if you look at Android or OSX you don't see
| 51% of users having malware on their machine
|
| - with the amount of money Apple has they could afford to
| improve the security by adding more sand boxing and making
| unlocking of the phone by "tricked incompetent users almost
| impossible"
|
| - I assume apps and websites can use your microphone and
| camera on your phone, it is under soem popup/permission
| prompt, why do you trust the "inexperienced users" with the
| camera permissions some bad person could trick them.
|
| - "protecting" an unknown small number of users by limiting
| the rest makes no sense, what makes more sense is MONEY,
| Apple makes more money by locking things down and getting 30%
| from apps, subscrip[tions and the much hated lootboxes
| yazaddaruvala wrote:
| > this number of completly inexperienced user is not proven
| to be as large, if you look at Android or OSX you don't see
| 51% of users having malware on their machine
|
| > "protecting" an unknown small number of users by limiting
| the rest makes no sense, what makes more sense is MONEY
|
| For creating policies 51% is a bad measure. Its inherently
| biased to be regressive. Setting policies at 51%
| disproportionately hurts the bottom 1%, 10% and 25% of the
| populations that need our help the most. This is true of
| all policies and especially laws.
|
| Meanwhile, if you've ever helped your grandma or parents
| with their computers, you'll realize just how much malware
| they have already downloaded. I also remember what I was
| like on Limewire and Kazaa as a kid. There is/was an entire
| industry built around it for Anti-virus and Malware
| protection.
|
| iOS doesn't require anti-virus or malware protection
| because Apple builds protection and privacy into the
| product as a core feature. Sadly, built into Android is
| malware but even Android is less susceptible to malware
| from unknown entities.
| simion314 wrote:
| I understand your point but we don't even know if the
| number of this users that need protecting is even 10%.
| This imaginary group of people must have this properties:
|
| - they are gullible , so bad people can trick them to
| ignore OS security warnings,create some extra account or
| security key to unlock the device (Apple can do it hard
| enough it must not be just 1 click)
|
| - at the same time this users are not that gullible to
| paste their credit card in random websites or on Apple
| approved chat messages
|
| - at the same time this users can be trusted with the app
| permissions for files,contacts, camera, location
|
| For me if I intersect all this sets of users I get void
| and your argument should be that everything should be
| locked down, no permissions allowed for this users, there
| should only Apple approved websites, apple approved
| contacts, Apple should scan your messages not to send
| your card details or do stupid things. This people should
| use an iOS version made for children and adults could use
| the unlocked version.
| yazaddaruvala wrote:
| > they are gullible , so bad people can trick them to
| ignore OS security warnings > For me if I intersect all
| this sets of users I get void
|
| I work at a pretty big company, where we are trusted to
| make a lot of important decisions but as I understand it
| even small companies have trainings to identify
| "phishing, clickbait, social engineering, etc". Every
| relatively big company also pre-approves devices that can
| connected and access the internal network. Installing
| software needs to be pre-approved. Even my browser
| Firefox or Chrome settings are pre-selected to ensure no
| compromising behavior can occur.
|
| I know from past-experience, friends and colleagues that
| my current company is not unique. Because all humans
| (even the smartest sets) are gullible, it just depends
| how time constrained, sleep deprived or drunk they are.
|
| Additionally, preventative protections on devices are
| used often even in personal contexts. When I help my mom
| set up her computer I pre-install everything and she
| doesn't have the admin password. This is the general
| recommendation for and by anyone helping someone under-
| educated about technology and abuse vectors. I've asked
| if she would rather me teach her and she just prefers
| using the computer without worry. Neither her, not this
| situation is unique.
|
| That said, I have previously and do agree, Apple should
| make it easier to boot non-iOS iPhones. However, Apple
| should only provide that to the registered adult owner of
| the device, in person at an Apple store after delivering
| the caveats that the device will no longer be supported
| by Apple (regardless of resale) and any warranty is void.
| simion314 wrote:
| The issues you describe are happening on computers where
| by default there is no sandbox, so an evil game or a bad
| application can do a lot of damage. But in an OS with
| strong sandbox and a good permission model the fact you
| add a dude to review your app does not add some extra
| security, from what I see this review people will check
| to make sure you follow the GUI /UX guidelines and also
| make sure you don't give the users information Apple
| won't like (like you could buy this cheaper from this
| webpage)
| leetcrew wrote:
| I absolutely resent the implication that protecting the
| bottom n% of gullible users is mutually exclusive with
| giving power users the access they desire. they seem to
| do a decent job of it on their OSX machines, so why not
| iOS?
| yazaddaruvala wrote:
| You're right! I disagree that the perfectly balanced
| system is OSX but overall I agree iPhones should have
| better "hack-ability".
|
| As I've posted elsewhere:
|
| I agree, Apple should make it easier to boot non-iOS
| iPhones. Even provide some tools to write custom OSes for
| the iPhone hardware. However, Apple should only provide
| that service to the registered adult owner of the device,
| in person at an Apple store after delivering the caveats
| that the device will no longer be supported by Apple
| (regardless of resale) and any warranty is void.
| simion314 wrote:
| Can you think of what a bad application can do to a user
| when side loading but is impossible to do when Apple
| reviews it, If I am a bad actor I can submit an app for
| review and activate an evil mode after the application is
| approved.
|
| Maybe we can stop pretending that the lock is in place to
| protect the users, most Android users do not root their
| devices or install random evil applications and then
| complain to Google about it, can't we just be sincere and
| say , "yeah is the way Apple keeps control on things for
| financial reason" . we could focus on the correct stuff
| then like how we can protect the small set of very
| gullible users from bad apps(that can be in the store) or
| bad webpages or evil messages.
| nodamage wrote:
| > If I am a bad actor I can submit an app for review and
| activate an evil mode after the application is approved.
|
| While this is of course still possible, the store model
| allows you to disable the app and remove the store
| listing to prevent further distribution of the bad app.
| You would be giving this up ability if you allowed third-
| party distribution. The fact that review is necessary in
| the first place also serves as a deterrent, and if a bad
| actor is caught their developer account can be banned to
| prevent them from submitting any more apps.
|
| > Maybe we can stop pretending that the lock is in place
| to protect the users
|
| Not sure why you think this is a pretense. In 2019,
| Android devices were responsible for 47.15% of malware
| infections compared to 0.85% of iPhones
| (https://onestore.nokia.com/asset/205835). There is a
| clear security benefit to the locked-down store model.
| yazaddaruvala wrote:
| Sure totally!
|
| With sideloading allowed, an application/appstore that is
| actually a trojan horse could request permissions once to
| "download X" where X is innocuous. Later the trojan auto-
| downloads other applications to your phone to mine
| bitcoin, run a bot net, etc. Basically selling your
| hardware, bandwidth and battery life to the highest
| bidder.
|
| With sideloading, alternate APIs could be scraped
| together into a "new std lib". These APIs would just be
| some C/asm lib that is a part of any application and
| accesses hardware without any permission management. At
| that point every possible bad thing can happen. "Sandbox
| it!" sure... but that is what Apple is currently doing...
| its just also auditing source code to ensure no one is
| maliciously trying to break out of the sandbox. With
| enough time, people will break the sandbox or people will
| complain the sandbox is too limiting and not "true
| sideloading".
|
| All this said, is Apple's auditing system a 100%
| guarantee? No. But at least I know once the bug/issue is
| found Apple will close the hole. Meanwhile, its in a
| company like FB or GOOG's best interest to force ever
| more tracking onto users, and they know people will
| continue to use their services regardless of the
| complaints (like what happens today).
|
| You might argue, "this is where government should step
| in". I agree! The problem is that the government isn't
| doing a good enough job protecting users from digital
| abuse (arguably might make it worse with weaker
| encryption). So in the meanwhile, I'm happy that at least
| Apple currently is trying to protect users.
| simion314 wrote:
| Apple is not reviewing the source code, they probably
| looking at what system calls you use and maybe they do
| what anti-virus software do on Windows, check for
| signatures or something like that. From my limited
| knowledge you can have your executable very obfuscated
| and make it impossible for someone to easily understand
| what is happening.
|
| The thing is nobody would force the normal users to side
| load things, the number of applications for Android that
| are not in the store is small and I think only Fortnite
| was one with popularity and the number of people
| sideloading it was not that big.
| leetcrew wrote:
| > I agree, Apple should make it easier to boot non-iOS
| iPhones. Even provide some tools to write custom OSes for
| the iPhone hardware. However, Apple should only provide
| that service to the registered adult owner of the device,
| in person at an Apple store after delivering the caveats
| that the device will no longer be supported by Apple
| (regardless of resale) and any warranty is void.
|
| this kinda misses the point. I don't want to write my own
| OS for the phone or run ubuntu or someone else's
| jailbroken iOS image. I just want to run normal iOS, get
| updates, and also have the ability to escalate privileges
| from time to time. why is there not an amount of money I
| can pay for this?
|
| also, does apple distribute any third party drivers in
| iOS? if so, they might not be able to make non-iOS
| iphones possible, even if they wanted to. not as familiar
| with the apple world but IIRC, this has been a
| longstanding issue for true alternative OSes on android
| phones.
| yazaddaruvala wrote:
| I think I'm onboard as long as the procedure is
| cumbersome enough, and the registered adult owner of the
| device confirms that they understand and agree the
| warranty and support is void.
|
| If you want to keep iOS as well... at that point, I do
| feel Apple is also in its right to remove all trademarked
| content from the phone running an iOS-like OS. AppStore,
| applications, remove all reference to words like
| "iPhone". So it would be a very bare-bones iOS-like.
|
| Because otherwise it could negatively impact their brand.
| Their brand is built on the premise they build amazing
| products for customers who want those products. If
| someone looks at your "modified, uncurated iPhone" and
| thinks it "feels janky" or "poor UX" or "bad battery
| life" or ..."" that could result in that person not
| buying/recommending an iPhone.
|
| Apple clearly values its brand highly and I can see why
| they would want their brand to be distanced from the type
| of device you would like.
| matwood wrote:
| Everyone should keep in mind your points when thinking about
| improving the situation. The current setup does have
| advantages for both consumers and developers.
|
| Did the majority of the app revenue end up flowing through
| the Apple by chance or did the rules that setup facilitate
| that system? As you said, consumers who spend money have
| largely chosen the Apple walled garden.
| holoduke wrote:
| Don't think epic really is in this for a better world. But
| heavily regulated app stores by public orgs. I am all for.
| mola wrote:
| A bunch of bullies whining about other bullies. I wish all
| parties involved a long and perilous battle.
| jeffrogers wrote:
| LMAO. Love the consumer friendly positioning of the group. If at
| least two of the founding members weren't data over-reachers,
| this might be good theater. As things are, these folks cannot
| claim they represent my best interests.
| electriclove wrote:
| Apple built their controlled ecosystem and set their rules. And
| now others are insisting that Apple should not have that control
| (even when they themselves are doing the same thing).
| [deleted]
| izacus wrote:
| Sounds like a great time to make sure we ban all the closed
| ecosystems and reestablish free market at its best.
| jakelazaroff wrote:
| A free market is mutually exclusive with a ban on closed
| ecosystems. You are arguing _against_ a free market.
| damnyou wrote:
| You are talking past each other. Markets can be free in
| principle but not in practice for various reasons
| (oligopolies, monopsonies, etc).
| kstrauser wrote:
| I think you're right. Although I'm with Apple on this
| one, in other contexts I've made the argument that I want
| my markets free as in GPL, not free as in BSD. That is, I
| want _the market itself_ to be free, even if that means
| its participants have some restrictions.
|
| Actually, in this case I guess that means I like the
| restrictions that Apple's app store places on developers.
| Sure, lose the ability to publish malware and other
| profitable things, but that protects my ability to use it
| peacefully.
| 0xDEEPFAC wrote:
| But it is impossible to bypass the store for any normal person.
|
| Think about it, you are a normal person who wants to continue
| to use an application and for some reason the dev has been
| kicked out of the store (this often happens and the devs often
| have no idea why or how). You would be frustrated no?
|
| Not to mention the mental stress of the poor devs which are
| subject to inhuman automated responses, neglect, and abuse by
| Apple/Google. Apple/Google is essentially shutting down small
| businesses arbitrarily and remorselessly. The only way action
| happens is if the dev somehow gets enough attention on sites
| like this that Apple is forced to act.
|
| These tech monopolies have MORE than enough money for a
| customer/creator/dev service department - they just don't care,
| or, perhaps, maliciously use the lack of one to control their
| platform: "Oops sorry, you have been talking to our super-smart
| infallible AI, we don't know why its acting this way, but we
| are sure its right! You have one week to fix the issues - have
| a nice day!"
| rblatz wrote:
| So I'm not sure what point you are arguing but it's either
| that consumers are stupid and don't really want a secure
| phone and walled garden and would want to take that choice
| away from customers by law.
|
| Or that Apple needs to charge less for access to the App
| Store while also spending more money (to stop the inhuman
| auto replies and actions)
|
| Both are terrible arguments
| 0xDEEPFAC wrote:
| Apple has more than enough money to both protect users and
| actually help developers - it doesn't need to squeeze them.
| For example, why isn't it a one-time fee for the initial
| scan? Why must they take a share of every purchase.
|
| Without competition (like _gasp_ competing app stores)
| Apple will continue to be negligent to devs and ban
| applications that compete with their services.
|
| For example, the Apple watch without cellular _cannot_ use
| Spotify in offline mode since that would compete with Apple
| music. My girlfriend and I had to find this out after the
| purchase and completely defeated the purpose of buying the
| product for her workouts.
| rblatz wrote:
| You start off with Apple has enough money and supposing
| that you know better how to run a successful App Store
| than the company with the most successful App Store.
| Maybe the App Store is so successful because it's
| customers are the people that own the phone not the devs.
| I know I absolutely don't want competing app stores, that
| ends with fragmentation and having to deal with a pile of
| installed app stores to download a couple of apps. It
| also means that apps will go to the least restrictive
| stores that let them get away with the shadiest anti-
| consumer practices.
|
| I've not run into the Spotify issue. I don't listen to
| music from my watch, but I agree that is annoying. The
| alternative sounds so much worse and why I stay away from
| Android.
| 0xDEEPFAC wrote:
| Lets replace "Apple" in your response with AT&T. "You
| think you know better how to run a successful phone
| service than a company with the most successful one?".
| No, I don't exactly, but I have enough common sense to
| see that they are doing wrong.
|
| And sure they have the most successful (and _only_ ) app
| store compared to the only other app store.
|
| But yea fragmentation/choice is just awful and without a
| doubt will lead to a less rich experience... totally
|
| Your reply comes off as very authoritarian and
| controlling. If you like the app store then you should
| have the choice to use it. What you are saying is that
| devs shouldn't have access to other options because you
| dont understand why they wouldn't use the perfect one
| already there.
| spideymans wrote:
| >Your reply comes off as very authoritarian and
| controlling. If you like the app store then you should
| have the choice to use it. What you are saying is that
| devs shouldn't have access to other options because you
| dont understand why they wouldn't use the perfect one
| already there.
|
| Oh, I get that the App Store isn't perfect for
| developers. That's perfectly fine though. My concern is
| end users, not developers (software developers aren't
| benevolent actors).
|
| Developers, such as Facebook, haven't exactly conducted
| themselves in a way to earn my trust. I'm happy to see
| them ensnared in the App Store's rules (at least the ones
| pertaining to privacy, security and general user
| experience). There's a reason you see users (even right
| here on HN) celebrating when Apple imposes an ever
| growing risk of privacy policies on developers. It's
| because users have learned _we cannot trust developers._
| nodamage wrote:
| > For example, the Apple watch without cellular cannot
| use Spotify in offline mode since that would compete with
| Apple music.
|
| IIRC this is related to Spotify's music licensing
| agreements only permitting _streaming_ and not _copying_
| of music and has nothing to do with Apple itself. I don
| 't believe there are any technical restrictions
| preventing Spotify from implementing offline playback on
| the watch, they simply have chosen not to do so.
| lostgame wrote:
| Epic; in particular, is just handling this situation laughably
| at best. I can't imagine taking someone to court over my own
| _intentionally sneaky_ violation of a company 's set of rules.
|
| The conversation about Apple's 30% is a valid one. Epic is,
| intentionally, at this point; taking a sledgehammer to any
| validity that conversation had.
|
| The way Epic handled this situation was with a maturity level
| of a 6-year-old kid yelling 'no!' to their parents and throwing
| a tantrum.
|
| We need serious, mature discussion over these issues.
|
| Spotify, in particular; while a horrible, heartless company to
| artists like myself, could at _least_ make the excuse that they
| could funnel more of that 30% to the artists, although I doubt
| any more than 1% of it would actually go to us. (Spotify CEO is
| worth $3.8bn and the company claims they can 't pay artists
| more...)
|
| I'm not sure wtf leg Tinder has to stand on beyond greed?
| dragonwriter wrote:
| > Epic; in particular, is just handling this situation
| laughably at best. I can't imagine taking someone to court
| over my own intentionally sneaky violation of a company's set
| of rules.
|
| There's nothing laughable about having a layered strategy of
| "try not to get caught, and, in case you are caught, have a
| backup argument that enforcement of the rules is illegal in
| any case."
| lostgame wrote:
| I believe it doesn't uphold the 'spirit' of the law. It's
| sneaky/sneaking. They could've had a discussion with Apple,
| or gone to court about it; ahead of time. What they did was
| sneaking around; plain and simple, and Apple just responded
| the way they would to _any_ app that suddenly activated a
| secret backdoor that would violate their terms and
| conditions.
|
| They invalidated their own potential for legal standing by
| intentionally sneaking around instead of working through
| the system like, for instance, LGTBQ+ people (I'm lesbian)
| did. If something is an injustice; you don't just, e.g.
| walk into a church and try to get married in a state or
| country that forbids it. You'll be prosecuted or killed.
| Doesn't matter that it's not fair.
|
| Apple's stance isn't as black/white, cut/dry as gay rights.
| But the point is, these guys took the absolutely wrong
| approach, have made themselves look like fools, and taken
| away power from people taking the time to _properly_ (e.g.
| not intentionally sneaking around, which a backdoor switch
| to violate their terms and conditions is, by definition)
| try to move through the legal system and make these
| changes.
|
| All Epic has done is made that harder for _real_ champions
| of Justice to approach in the future. It 's the stuff
| conspiracy theories are made of. They're not standing for
| rights. They're standing for profits. Nobody's falling for
| it, especially not the judges.
| dragonwriter wrote:
| > They're not standing for rights. They're standing for
| profits.
|
| The entire reason we have a private right of action for
| firms (rather than just a public right of action) in
| antitrust law is that actors selfishly standing up for
| their own profits will incidentally serve the public
| interest. The law does not rely on or expect litigants
| (other than those acting in the direct employ of the
| government) to seek to serve any interest other than
| their own narrow interests, instead it is (insofar as it
| seeks to serve a public interest, which is sadly not
| always the intent of the law to start with) designed to
| achieve the public interest by shaping private incentives
| so that the pursuit of private interest itself moves the
| public interest forward.
|
| So, while what you describe in the above quote about Epic
| is unquestionably true, that's exactly how the law is
| _supposed_ to work.
| throwaway_USD wrote:
| >And now others are insisting that Apple should not have that
| control (even when they themselves are doing the same thing).
|
| Exactly Apple organized developers, giving the developers a
| collective power to rival Apple's unilateral
| dictatorship...sure Apple could call their bluff like they
| always do with any one single developer, except if these
| developers collectively withdraw from the Apple ecosystem in
| mass, Apple would lose developers/market share/market cap.
|
| Now if only consumers would collectively organize against big
| tech in the same fashion, big tech wouldn't seem so big, and
| consumer could begin to dictate how these platforms collect use
| their data.
| criddell wrote:
| It's about power. The importance of mobile platforms has grown
| over the past decade. Apple is in a much different position now
| than they were when the app store started. It makes some sense
| that opinions on that have changed.
| kstrauser wrote:
| And furthermore, the Apple ecosystem is so popular _because_
| Apple curates the app store. I recommend their stuff to my non-
| techie relatives because I trust that they 're not going to
| stumble their way into installing malware from some weird
| knockoff from Elbonia.
|
| With an iPhone, for better or for worse, I can point them at
| the App Store... app... ("say 'app' again! I dare you!") and be
| reasonably confident they're getting the official Instagram
| app. There _are_ multiple apps with "Instagram" in the name,
| but the official one is the top search result.
|
| Contrast with the Chrome Web Store. The search results for
| "Instagram"[0] have a bunch of results from who-knows-where,
| and many of them contain the official logo somewhere inside
| their preview image. They all _look_ they could be the real
| thing, but as far as I can tell, _none_ of them are.
|
| Going to the family's house for holidays use to mean spending
| some time cleaning the weird programs off of the in-laws'
| computer. Now it means uninstalling the odd Chrome extensions
| they've manage to find, and making them change their website
| passwords.
|
| If it ever becomes super easy for Apple users to install random
| software they find on the Internet, I am throwing my older
| family members' iPhones into a lake and giving them a flip
| phone.
|
| [0] https://chrome.google.com/webstore/search/instagram?hl=en-
| US...
| dingaling wrote:
| > There are multiple apps with "Instagram" in the name
|
| That's not very convincing 'curation'.
| MarioMan wrote:
| If it helps, all of them are "by Instagram" or in some way
| complementary to Instagram. None of the top results are
| impersonating Instagram.
| [deleted]
| strictnein wrote:
| "Standard Oil built their ecosystem and set their rules."
|
| "AT&T built their ecosystem and set their rules."
| sixstringtheory wrote:
| From Wikipedia's entry on Standard Oil [0]:
|
| > Standard Oil dominated the oil products market initially
| through horizontal integration in the refining sector, then,
| in later years vertical integration; the company was an
| innovator in the development of the business trust.
|
| Horizontal then vertical integration is exactly what Epic is
| doing, by first getting onto a bunch of platforms and app
| stores, then creating their own app stores and auxiliary
| purchasable items. Apple has always been vertically
| integrating, when have they horizontally integrated? AFAIK
| they've always been a platform into which other companies,
| like Microsoft with their original Office suite, have
| horizontally integrated.
|
| > The Standard Oil trust streamlined production and
| logistics, lowered costs, and undercut competitors.
|
| The group of companies coming together to form this advocacy
| group is a trust. Apple is not.
|
| From Wikipedia's entry on US v AT&T [1]:
|
| > [AT&T was] using monopoly profits from its Western Electric
| subsidiary to subsidize the costs of its network
|
| Companies selling apps on the app store are not subsidiaries
| of Apple, they are customers of Apple. A company reinvesting
| profits into itself is not anticompetitive. Maybe you had a
| different idea of why AT&T relates to Apple, but I don't see
| it.
|
| [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_Oil
|
| [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._AT%26T
| nodamage wrote:
| Ok now compare the iPhone's market share to Standard Oil and
| AT&T's market share at the time of their breakup. One of
| these things is not like the others.
| MrScruff wrote:
| Is the iPhone a monopoly?
| m_ke wrote:
| iOS has around 70% share of mobile app revenue and most of the
| premium customers. If you're building a business, media or
| communication tool you can't compete without an iOS app.
| M4v3R wrote:
| Apple's "walled garden" approach is exactly the reason why
| they have gathered 70% share of mobile app revenue. One of
| the reasons is that people feel generally more safe on iOS
| because there's almost no malware there. The other is that
| Android being more "open" actually hurts the developers
| because there's rampant piracy on Google's OS [1]. On iOS
| piracy is almost non-existing (unless one jailbreaks their
| phone which nowadays pretty much no one does [2]).
|
| [1] https://www.forbes.com/sites/ewanspence/2016/02/03/androi
| d-p...
|
| [2] https://www.quora.com/What-percentage-of-iPhones-have-
| been-j...
| sixstringtheory wrote:
| Nobody is entitled to build a business, media or
| communication tool. Nobody is entitled to "success."
| mFixman wrote:
| It's a monopoly, and it's illegal.
| dimitrios1 wrote:
| Calling a company that has ~13% of the market share in mobile
| devices is quite the take. It will never hold up in court.
| tempsy wrote:
| It's a duopoly between Android and iOS. Better?
|
| And the current lawsuits are arguing that Apple has a
| monopoly on payments on their own devices, not that they
| have a monopoly on the smartphone market. Big difference.
| [deleted]
| supercanuck wrote:
| They control 100% of the apps on an iPhone
| zepto wrote:
| Everyone controls 100% of what happens on their own
| platform.
|
| Epic is a monopolist.
| gsich wrote:
| In which way? Not on PC, that's for sure.
| onion2k wrote:
| Epic has a share of the PC games software market.
| zepto wrote:
| Yes - and they control their own platform. Therefore they
| are a monopolist.
|
| /s
|
| I clearly don't actually believe this, but the point is
| that if Apple is a Monopolist, then so is Epic.
| onion2k wrote:
| On Epic's game store the product is PC software. Epic
| don't control how all PC software is sold.
|
| On Apple's app store the product is iOS software. Apple
| _do_ control how all iOS software is sold.
|
| Seriously, this isn't complicated...
| zepto wrote:
| Sure but it 'iOS software' is an arbitrary category.
|
| It's all just software.
| supercanuck wrote:
| The iOS part makes it "not arbitrary"
| zepto wrote:
| Nobody is forced to build for iOS.
| supercanuck wrote:
| It is a Hobson's Choice
| zepto wrote:
| I partially agree. I just think Epic's remedy will make
| things even worse.
| shadowgovt wrote:
| Apple is a vertical monopolist across a large-market-
| share hardware platform it manufactures and an exclusive
| system for putting software onto that platform.
|
| Epic has a store, but doesn't have a large-market-share
| hardware platform they control exclusively to go with it.
| Any machine I can install the Epic app store on, I can
| also install Steam on.
| zepto wrote:
| Apple's market share isn't large enough for this argument
| to work.
|
| If people are pushing for a change in framework where no
| hardware manufacturer is allowed to control what software
| is installed on their platform, I actually think that
| might be a good change across the board.
|
| The groups targeting Apple don't care about any such
| freedom. They simply want more money for themselves
| without having to invest.
| shadowgovt wrote:
| Not all vertical monopolies are trusts in need of
| breaking up. Apple's market share may not be enough for
| the monopoly to require anti-trust intervention, but
| definitionally, Apple has structured its hardware and
| software system on mobile as a vertical monopoly.
| HideousKojima wrote:
| Within the US (which is where it matters for this case),
| Apple has ~40% of the market and a bigger share of the
| market than any other phone maker.
| IncRnd wrote:
| Nobody said the monopoly is in mobile devices. The
| reference was to the controlled ecosystem. That is what
| Epic's case is about. Their developer account was revoked
| when they wanted to use a different merchant processor.
| Apple is practically engaging in RICO activities.
| bilbo0s wrote:
| That's the problem. I think people keep using the term
| "monopoly" maybe because that's what they are familiar
| with, but you are correct in pointing out that courts of
| law have a very specific legal interpretation of that word.
|
| Probably one solution is to place the bet on anti- _trust_
| instead. It 's still not quite right, but if you bend the
| current legal understanding of "trust" a little bit, you
| can get there. Whereas, there's no amount of bending the
| interpretation of "monopoly" that will make Apple fit.
| izacus wrote:
| Just a few months ago Apple was happy to explain to
| everyone that they secured more than 80% of mobile markets
| profits. Hiding that by citinng some nebolous market share
| of questionable market definition is perhaps not a good
| idea.
| AlexandrB wrote:
| This is a bizarre definition of monopoly that, if it were
| applied to any other industry, would turn common sense on
| its head. If Amazon runs its retail operations at a small
| loss, is it now less of a monopoly than a boutique
| retailer with big margins but < 1% of the market share?
| emptysongglass wrote:
| At least in the US, this figure is closer to half. The
| point is not the market share they control but that they
| also control and set the rates to the marketplace within.
| To quote Senator Warren:
|
| >If you run a platform where others come to sell, then you
| don't get to sell your own items on the platform because
| you have two comparative advantages. One, you've sucked up
| information about every buyer and every seller before
| you've made a decision about what you're going to sell. And
| second, you have the capacity -- because you run the
| platform -- to prefer your product over anyone else's
| product. It gives an enormous comparative advantage to the
| platform.
| throwaway17_17 wrote:
| This quote from Warren is completely divorced from the
| current legal reality in the US. Using her definitions it
| would be impossible for retail stores to have store
| brands, and then there would be a question about whether
| stores that only sell their brands are allowed as well.
| Clearly, since Walmart, Costco, Dillards, etc can have
| store brands and can pick and choose what items to sell
| at retail, I don't see how her quote can be taken as
| anything other than a hypothetical policy position.
| sempron64 wrote:
| I'm not a huge fan of Apple's arbitrary-feeling
| restrictions on developers and of their market power, but
| the following argument can be made to show they really
| are not monopolistic abusers who should be regulated
| against:
|
| Costco charges a membership to use their store
| ("platform"), similar to buying an iPhone. Costco offers
| reduced-price store brand goods. Costco controls and
| decides which third-party goods are available in the
| store. This is all generally considered to be to the
| consumers advantage due to lower prices and good
| experience. If the consumer does not like Costco, they
| can go to a different store. If a consumer does not like
| the experience of purchasing their apps in the app store,
| they can use Safari to access the web site, purchase an
| Android or use a PC for their computing needs, and a
| console/portable for their gaming needs. The number of
| competitors to the iPhone platform is lower than the
| number of competitors to Costco, but it's not an
| insignificant number of alternatives. If ALL mobile
| platforms did not allow sideloading and charged similar
| rates, AND it was impossible to create a new mobile
| platform (admittedly difficult, RIP Microsoft,
| Blackberry, Nokia, Firefox OS) AND it could be shown
| webapps are not viable (they are viable) then Apple plus
| the other platform might have an anti-trust problem.
|
| As it is it's a unfair to punish Apple for successfully
| curating a good experience where users are happy and
| comfortable spending money. All retailers set the
| conditions for sellers to sell with them.
| emptysongglass wrote:
| >If a consumer does not like the experience of purchasing
| their apps in the app store, they can use Safari to
| access the web site, purchase an Android or use a PC for
| their computing needs, and a console/portable for their
| gaming needs.
|
| That sounds like an incredible headache for the customer
| wishing to opt for an alternative.
|
| > If ALL mobile platforms did not allow sideloading and
| charged similar rates, AND it was impossible to create a
| new mobile platform (admittedly difficult, RIP Microsoft,
| Blackberry, Nokia, Firefox OS) AND it could be shown
| webapps are not viable (they are viable) then Apple plus
| the other platform might have an anti-trust problem.
|
| You've made my argument for me: nobody wants to use a
| webapp and just about no one does. There's only one other
| mobile platform with any market share and it's Google's
| Android. The Sisyphean task of launching a new OS into
| this fray is so high that even an authoritarian nation-
| state isn't going to do it, so let's just call a spade a
| spade and say it's impossible.
|
| Google's Android doesn't give you blue bubbles so say
| goodbye to much of your iPhone-privileged social circle,
| which uses blue bubbles as a new kind of social elitism
| predicated on wealth-peacocking. You're essentially
| bullied into one avenue or the other and the apps you
| paid for a long tether of slavery to the platform you've
| picked. It's enough to give someone Stockholm syndrome
| but I'm not yet out catching bullets for them, are you?
|
| All of these corporations need to be broken up. The
| problem is not just Apple. But Apple's platform is locked
| down so tight they will stop at nothing to get their
| penny's share, whether you're a cool new email service
| (Hey) or you want to launch a gaming cloud service
| (xCloud, Stadia, you-name-it).
|
| This is not Costco selling generic fruits and meats for
| your consumption. This is a dominion of access to how you
| communicate, to how you read, to how you play.
| danShumway wrote:
| Apple holds ~40% of the US smartphone market[0], and >50%
| of mobile revenue from app store purchases[1]. Apple is one
| half of a duopoly.
|
| The citations of global mobile device market share are
| deceptive. It is not necessary for US regulators to prove
| that Apple has a monopoly in India to prove that they are
| engaged in anticompetitive behaviors in the US. If you want
| to make money as a mobile app developer, deciding not to
| support iOS can be a crippling decision. You don't really
| have a choice[2].
|
| ----
|
| [0]: https://www.counterpointresearch.com/us-market-
| smartphone-sh...
|
| [1]: https://www.fool.com/investing/2019/10/11/as-usual-
| apples-ap...
|
| [2]: That ends up being the much more interesting argument
| anyway, because Apple advocates mostly _want_ Apple to be
| able to force developers to jump through hoops. I 've seen
| a lot of arguments on this topic that say that 3rd-party
| app stores would be a disaster because companies wouldn't
| be de-facto forced to distribute through the primary app
| store.
|
| For those people, the duopoly and monopolistic power
| structures are the point -- they're not debating whether or
| not Apple is so powerful that it's taking away developer
| choice. They want Apple to take away developer choice.
|
| I disagree with those people, but I find their position to
| be much more compelling than, "India uses Android, so the
| US can't regulate its own market."
| sempron64 wrote:
| > You don't really have a choice
|
| Why do you not have a choice? If your product is not
| stocked in Walmart or Amazon, who make up the bulk of
| U.S. retail, can you not make money? Having your app
| exclusively on Android can make plenty of money. Epic
| makes plenty of money on other platforms. Many game
| publishers are successful publishing exclusively for one
| console. Pandora was fine before mobile apps. Many dating
| websites exist. 40% of a particular segment of the
| computing sector in a market as huge as the US does not
| monopoly make.
| arrosenberg wrote:
| It's not a question of whether you can "make plenty of
| money". It's whether we want to allow private regulation
| of markets. Right now Google and Apple are the regulators
| of the mobile app market - the public has no say in how
| those marketplaces are run, and both companies use their
| ownership of the OS platforms to enforce this market
| control.
|
| Antitrust actions are aimed at restoring public oversight
| over public markets. Two companies should not have the
| ability to lock developers entirely out the mobile app
| market.
| disposekinetics wrote:
| It's a monopoly in the same way Spotify not hosting some
| episodes of Joe Rogan is a monopoly.
| ijidak wrote:
| I don't believe monopolies are illegal.
|
| It's using an advantage in one area to force concessions in
| an unrelated area that I believe is illegal.
|
| For example, Microsoft had an effective monopoly over PC
| operating systems.
|
| That was unfortunate, but not illegal.
|
| It was when they used that monopoly to disadvantage a rival
| browser maker --- Netscape -- that they broke anti-trust law.
|
| I'm most interested in seeing what happens over Apple's
| decisions to force app providers to use Apple Sign-in if the
| offer any other 3rd party SSO.
|
| As a developer, I may have valid security concerns regarding
| Apple Sign-in.
|
| So their app store dominance seems unrelated to SSO
| infrastructure. And I don't fully understand how they can
| force me to use it if I decide to support Google or Facebook
| SSO in my app.
|
| So I do wonder if that is an anti-trust violation.
| arrosenberg wrote:
| > It's using an advantage in one area to force concessions
| in an unrelated area that I believe is illegal.
|
| Can you find me a single example of a monopoly (excluding
| regulated utilities) that don't use their power to force
| concessions in an unrelated area? What's the point
| otherwise?
| 0xDEEPFAC wrote:
| We are at a state where these tech companies have the same
| value as countries and entire stock indexes. It is obscene,
| and yet they make their devices more locked down,
| harder/ILLEGAL! to fix by paying off politicians both to
| not enforce laws and to write them in their favor at the
| expense of smaller competition.
|
| The merger of state and corporate powers is complete. We
| live in a fascist world with surveillance that Stalin could
| only dream of.
|
| So yea, a bit "unfortunate"
| dleslie wrote:
| Apple clearly has competitors that have a much larger share
| of the market.
| emptysongglass wrote:
| They have _one_ competitor on which users are allowed to
| install their own market (see F-Droid.) [1]
|
| [1] https://www.f-droid.org/
| dleslie wrote:
| F-Droid itself relies upon Android's openness to allow it
| to be installed.
|
| If you don't like Apple's walled garden then use Android.
| im3w1l wrote:
| And if you want to install whichever apps you want, AND
| not be spied on by your OS, there are basically no
| options.
|
| Linageos is a possibility, but with the play services
| situation, running any mainstream app without phoning
| home to google is if not impossible, extremely difficult
| and filled with footguns.
|
| Pine and Librem are exciting emerging possibilities but
| they have only been available for a very short time so it
| remains to be seen what will happen there.
| dleslie wrote:
| PinePhone is available to order right now; and it's cheap
| as hell.
| [deleted]
| im3w1l wrote:
| From what I heard there are some wrinkles to iron out
| before it's ready for the mass market, but I must admit I
| have not looked into it closely yet.
| onion2k wrote:
| When people talk about Apple having a monopoly they're
| referring to Apple having complete control over the sale of
| iOS software. There is no one else in that market. Apple
| has 100% market share.
| nodamage wrote:
| Sorry but a market consisting of a single manufacturer's
| own product is generally not considered a valid antitrust
| market for legal purposes. You can't simply declare an
| arbitrarily narrow market like this because every
| manufacturer would then have a monopoly over its own
| products.
| dleslie wrote:
| There are other people in the _mobile software_ market;
| if the argument for monopoly requires being as specific
| as _mobile software that operates on a specific
| manufacturer of a minority of all phones_ then perhaps
| it's not a monopoly at all.
| sixstringtheory wrote:
| iOS is not a market, it's a product.
|
| This is like saying Uber has a monopoly on all of their
| own assets.
|
| Wrong terminology.
| shadowgovt wrote:
| Correct. The relevant terms are "horizontal monopoly" and
| "vertical monopoly."
|
| A horizontal monopoly is if one company made all the
| cars.
|
| A vertical monopoly is if one car manufacturer owned all
| the roads in Detroit and only their cars were authorized
| to drive on those roads.
|
| Apple is a vertical monopoly across its hardware, the
| software that runs on that hardware (they don't own the
| software, but they own the distribution channel), and
| some of the suppliers that manufacture components for the
| hardware.
| 52-6F-62 wrote:
| > A vertical monopoly is if one car manufacturer owned
| all the roads in Detroit and only their cars were
| authorized to drive on those roads.
|
| That's not a good analogy. It's more like if you bought
| X's car model and X had a policy that you could only buy
| official, certified parts from certified dealers through
| which they get a cut. (App Store)
|
| You can go for after market parts but if you break the
| car it's on you. ("Jailbreaking" AKA flashing your
| device)
| notatoad wrote:
| you don't need to have a literal monopoly to engage in
| illegal anticompetitive behaviour, nor is having a monopoly
| even illegal. Apple has monopoly-like control over the
| mobile app market - if you don't make an iPhone app, your
| product is dead in the water. and apple is using that power
| to crush any competition to their own in-app payment
| solution.
| layoutIfNeeded wrote:
| Apple does not have a monopoly on phones. Not even
| smartphones.
| supercanuck wrote:
| They have a monopoly over the apps on the iOS.
| zepto wrote:
| In that case every single retail store has a monopoly on
| the products they sell.
|
| This is a meaningless definition of monopoly.
| supercanuck wrote:
| I don't need to spend $1,000 to enter a store.
|
| The issue is market power
| realusername wrote:
| Except in the retail world, there's competition between
| stores. Competition is non-existent in the mobile world,
| there's only two companies and both have the exact same
| fees and very similar policies.
| zepto wrote:
| So we need more entrants.
|
| Why doesn't this coalition of multi-billion dollar
| corporations invest in creating an Android based
| alternative with different policies?
|
| That would add choice to the market rather than taking it
| away.
|
| They can clearly afford to do so, but it seems like they
| just don't feel the need to make the investment.
| realusername wrote:
| That's because of the market lock-in and power of both
| companies, you can't use any of the Apple stack and
| Android without the Play Store is a commercial death
| sentence.
| zepto wrote:
| Why is it a death sentence not to have the play store?
|
| I don't see why Epic couldn't create their own gaming
| focussed device, and buy a bunch of exclusive titles
| including their own content.
|
| If their store had better terms than Play, and accepted
| APKs, why wouldn't other developers want to sell through
| it?
|
| If the argument is that developers are desperate for
| better terms, it must follow that they would want to
| support a store which provided them.
| Sargos wrote:
| >I don't see why Epic couldn't create their own gaming
| focussed device, and buy a bunch of exclusive titles
| including their own content.
|
| Nobody would buy a phone that only plays (a few) games
| and has very little useful apps. You're not arguing in
| good faith.
| realusername wrote:
| > Why is it a death sentence not to have the play store?
|
| Because of network effects, consumers just don't want a
| phone without their banking apps.
|
| Epic tried to make a deal like you suggest with OnePlus
| and LG but it was cancelled due to Google pressure.
| zepto wrote:
| Epic could market the device at first to their own
| customers, many of whom are kids who don't need banking
| apps.
|
| Network effects are strong, but not impossible to
| overcome. All they need to do is sell the device to users
| who don't care about banking apps for long enough for
| banking apps to be uploaded to their store.
|
| As for the the deal with OnePlus and LG. I don't believe
| it was anything like what I am suggesting - that was just
| a co-marketing effort.
|
| They weren't going to create a new and open platform
| based on Android.
|
| The argument that nobody can ever compete against Android
| no matter what they do is a weak one.
|
| The iPod was an incredibly niche device when it was
| launched.
|
| There is a proven market for handheld gaming platforms
| that don't run banking apps. Epic could start there and
| build out, just like Apple did.
| realusername wrote:
| They could create a device targeting kids with games,
| nice controls and everything but it would just be another
| kind of PSVita at the end with Sony and Nintendo as
| competitors... It would never be a device competing in
| the mobile app market.
|
| So yeah, they could do that but it would be pointless.
| zepto wrote:
| "it would never be a device competing in the mobile app
| market"
|
| This is false at face value.
|
| If they put cellular functionality and an open app store
| on the device, it would be de-facto _competing in the
| mobile app market._
| realusername wrote:
| That's not what defines the mobile app market, what makes
| the mobile app market is that the device can replace a
| computer. Even if you could put a SIM card into a
| Nintendo Switch, that would still just be a Nintendo
| Switch.
| arrosenberg wrote:
| > They can clearly afford to do so, but it seems like
| they just don't feel the need to make the investment.
|
| Is it clear? If it's that easy, how did Microsoft,
| Facebook and Amazon all fail in their efforts to break
| into that market?
|
| It seems much simpler to force Apple to follow fair trade
| rules on the marketplace, than to force every other
| company to develop their own OS and hardware.
| Furthermore, the latter option basically bars anyone who
| isn't already in control of a large corporation from
| entering the mobile app market without Apple's blessing.
| snicker7 wrote:
| The Apple store has a monopoly on installing software on
| Apple devices.
| m_ke wrote:
| They control almost 70% of mobile app revenue:
| https://swagsoft.com.sg/blog/android-vs-ios-which-
| platform-t....
|
| A service like netflix, spotify or basecamp can't compete
| without an iOS app.
| layoutIfNeeded wrote:
| Yep. And why are iOS users more willing to pay for mobile
| apps than Android users? Because they know that Apple
| keeps app vendors on a short leash.
|
| Apple has a monopoly on _non-shit smartphones_ precisely
| because of their restrictive policies.
| matsemann wrote:
| Or maybe the reason iOS users spend more is because iOS
| users generally have more spendable money? As signaled by
| them having bought an expensive device.
| MrScruff wrote:
| Yes but there are alternatives. The consumer has chosen
| and they've chosen Apple's model for how a phone should
| work.
| indymike wrote:
| All of this depends on how the market is defined. If we use
| iPhone users as the market, then Apple is clearly a
| monopoly. If we use smartphones or computing devices, then
| Apple is not. Time will tell, and lots of lawyers are going
| to get paid a lot of money to argue this one out.
| layoutIfNeeded wrote:
| Ok, then why doesn't Coca-Cola Inc. let other companies'
| sell their beverage from Coca-Cola vending machines?
| Clearly they have a monopoly on Coca-Cola vending
| machines...
| 0xDEEPFAC wrote:
| Yea and Google doesn't do the same sh*t as Apple? Looking
| at it this way, it is impossible to avoid abusive and
| increasingly vague and restrictive store policies..
|
| You think there is a chance in hell Apple and Google are
| not going to continue the trend of restricting devs and
| taking bigger profit shares for the "privilege" of being in
| the store? Its only going to get worse. Good for them for
| standing up.
| ojilles wrote:
| If you wish more competition to enter the market I'd
| argue for Apple to increase its prices (the higher
| margins the more competition).
|
| You're arguing they lower their prices, and thats just
| going to cement their position.
| 0xDEEPFAC wrote:
| I am not arguing for them to continue their status quo, I
| am saying that without competition Apple/Google have no
| incentive to improve.
|
| We would all be better off if Apple lowered prices _and_
| we got alternatives. That 's a win/win even if most users
| don't use the alternatives.
| dontspeak wrote:
| I came hear for Epic vs Appstores but was served arguments on
| analogies.
| valuearb wrote:
| As a small app developer, I'm sure happy to have these three
| giant companies advocating for "my interests".
|
| Sheez.
| baby wrote:
| Amazon needs to join. Can't get books in the kindle app.
| [deleted]
| debug-desperado wrote:
| Competition is good for consumers. It's very brave of Tim Sweeney
| et al. to take up this cause, and I hope they succeed.
|
| We shouldn't tolerate the monopolies, duopolies, and _opolies of
| our age. The early 20th century progressives understand how
| harmful they were to the common man.
| mastazi wrote:
| Undismissable full-screen modal that forces me to get all
| cookies? Not gonna read it mate. You would expect an advocacy
| group to try and get their message out...
| nicetryguy wrote:
| I'm surprised at all of the negativity here. The changes proposed
| would be great for developers, even if (most) of the companies
| involved are shady, their reasons are selfish, and the obvious
| "astroturfiness" of the website is laughably dissonant and reeks
| like a dirty think tank that hasn't been cleaned in months. Apple
| has no qualms about absolutely screwing developers historically.
| I'm happy to see some pushback.
| actuator wrote:
| I have also been really surprised with the whole debate on this
| saga here. For developers, this looks like such a no brainer
| because they should personally relate to what these companies
| are asking for.
| zepto wrote:
| None of this would be great for developers.
|
| Having to deal with a multitude of stores run by companies
| that are even shadier than Apple is not good.
| bogwog wrote:
| Are you kidding? Being able to sell on more than one store
| is a massive advantage. Besides the obvious lower risks and
| lower fees, you can also benefit from better exposure and
| discovery (two things that are terrible on the app store
| and google play) especially in niche stores.
| zepto wrote:
| Being _forced_ to sell on multiple stores _and_ comply
| with multiple sets of store rules _just to access the
| same set of consumers_ is a massive disadvantage.
|
| There will be greater risks. It's conceivable that fees
| will be a little lower, but this will only benefit larger
| developers who can absorb the increased costs of dealing
| with all the stores.
|
| It will be nothing but destructive for smaller
| developers.
| Apocryphon wrote:
| This is scaremongering. Android has alternative app
| stores and most apps don't bother releasing to them. iOS
| would not fragment overnight into dozens of app stores if
| it was to become open. Likely the majority of apps would
| still target the App Store, with a handful of major
| competing stores. These competitors would be
| _incentivized_ to attract developers, otherwise they
| would end up with the same lack of apps that killed
| alternative smartphone operating systems. Not to mention,
| there would be some degree of standardization of store
| rules across these platforms, because that 's how
| industries with multiple players tend to function.
|
| You're describing an entirely extreme position without
| any basis.
| zepto wrote:
| The handful of competitors would be multi-billion dollar
| corporations, e.g. Epic, Facebook, Google, Amazon,
| Microsoft.
|
| The incentive for developers is as always, customers. The
| stores would be incentivized to acquire customers.
| Developers would be forced to support any store that had
| more than a few percent of customers.
|
| Acquiring customers can be done without giving good terms
| to most developers. All you need is a small number of
| exclusives. Epic has their own content, and the others
| would be able for trivially bid foe the top apps.
| Facebook and Amazon would simply extend their existing
| iOS apps into becoming stores, and presumably Google
| could do this with Chrome for iOS, which they'd trivially
| market via search results.
|
| There is no reason these stores would need the long tail
| of apps as long as they had a few very popular ones, and
| that would _reduce_ exposure for the long tail that did
| remain in the Apple store.
|
| Your point about standardization of store rules isn't
| obvious - what industry do you think this compares with?
|
| There is no reason to think that this would do anything
| to democratize the industry, indeed it would be likely to
| have the opposite effect, of increasing barriers to entry
| for smaller developers.
|
| My position isn't extreme in the least. It is the obvious
| extrapolation of the behaviors of current players.
|
| An extreme position would be the emergency of a utopia of
| developer centric stores all bending over themselves to
| make things better for the little guy.
| Apocryphon wrote:
| > Developers would be forced to support any store that
| had more than a few percent of customers.
|
| Look at the Amazon Appstore for Android and you'll see an
| anemic limited app marketplace that while subpar, doesn't
| seem to be doing anything particularly nefarious to
| consumers nor developers alike. And it's precisely anemic
| and limited because it contains far fewer apps than the
| Play Store. We have the entire Android ecosystem to use
| as a case study to see why competing iOS app stores
| wouldn't be a threat to either to the App Store's
| prominence nor to the livelihoods of developers.
|
| > Acquiring customers can be done without giving good
| terms to most developers. All you need is a small number
| of exclusives.
|
| Which does not obviate the ability of the vast majority
| of non-FANMG affiliated developers to stay on the App
| Store as they please, or only join the specific app
| stores that they wish to live on out of desire and not
| necessity.
|
| > There is no reason these stores would need the long
| tail of apps as long as they had a few very popular ones,
| and that would reduce exposure for the long tail that did
| remain in the Apple store.
|
| You seem to be operating under the misunderstanding that
| the existence of alternative app stores creates lock-in.
|
| > Your point about standardization of store rules isn't
| obvious - what industry do you think this compares with?
|
| I'm saying any industry that involves multiple players
| will see the standardization of norms and operating
| conventions, much like how UX patterns across different
| apps standardizes over time. (Take the adoption of the
| "hamburger button" to mean menu back in the '10s). If
| there are multiple entrants into the app store space,
| standard business practices will arise as a new and
| exciting place for entrepreneurs is created.
|
| > There is no reason to think that this would do anything
| to democratize the industry, indeed it would be likely to
| have the opposite effect, of increasing barriers to entry
| for smaller developers.
|
| And there's no reason to think that the existing
| situation is any more democratic than the hypothetical
| you're spinning.
|
| > It is the obvious extrapolation of the behaviors of
| current players.
|
| And is it being borne out on Android? There's no Facebook
| nor Microsoft Play store there. There doesn't even seem
| to be interest in that direction. Yes, comparing the iOS
| and Android ecosystems (especially in the service of
| delineating a hypothetical open iOS ecosystem) is
| imprecise, but it's useful for the sake of this
| discussion.
|
| > An extreme position would be the emergency of a utopia
| of developer centric stores all bending over themselves
| to make things better for the little guy.
|
| Which isn't what I'm arguing for, either. I think there's
| the potential for that. Certainly more than in the status
| quo.
| zepto wrote:
| Your premise seems to be that the current situation on
| Android is a good model for what would happen on iOS.
|
| Epic themselves are suing Google because android doesn't
| actually allow competing stores to operate in an equal
| footing.
|
| That's really all that is needed to dismiss this like of
| argument.
|
| My extrapolation is not being borne out on Android
| because Android also doesn't allow stores to compete on
| an equal footing, which is why Epic is also suing them.
|
| I'm assuming you just didn't know about this.
|
| There will be no new and exciting place for developers.
| There will be exactly the same platform, but a whole load
| of additional predatory business to deal with.
|
| If you truly think I'm wrong (and honestly, I'd like to
| be), perhaps you can flesh out a realistic hypothetical
| about what developers can expect rather than waving away
| the idea that say, Facebook and Amazon would get
| involved.
| Apocryphon wrote:
| If you're going to dismiss the majority of my arguments
| and points, as well as reality in favor of your own
| framing, then you're refusing to debate in good faith.
|
| Epic's lawsuit is immaterial, imo. We don't know how the
| courts will decide. Rather, what's being debated is what
| a hypothetical open iOS will look like. Even if they lose
| the lawsuit, Pandora's box has been opened. Years of
| developer dissatisfaction and corporate strategizing has
| called Apple's dominance into question, and we are now
| examining potential futures if Apple opens up. I don't
| believe a forced opening on Epic's terms is inevitable,
| nor is it the only model for opening up.
|
| One can even imagine a scenario where Apple opens up _on
| its own terms_. Perhaps they provide SDKs that allow the
| creation of third party app stores with stringent
| security mechanisms built in, and license that out to
| partners. They certainly have the resources to undertake
| such a process, and forcing such stores to pay a license
| fee would both allow them to recoup on lost revenue and
| allow them to maintain a level of control over their
| platform. Epic would scream but again they 're neither
| the first to cry foul over the App Store monopoly, nor
| the last. If the bulk of the developer grievances can be
| sidestepped by Apple themselves, Epic would then truly
| just look like a litigious rent-seeker, rather than a
| company that's accidentally doing something that's
| helping the little guy.
|
| > perhaps you can flesh out a realistic hypothetical
| about what developers can expect
|
| How about the gaming market, especially over the past
| decade. The rise of Steam, the presence of somewhat niche
| alternatives like GOG.com, GamersGate, Humble Bundle, (I
| believe Blizzard was the major publisher with their own
| digital distribution store early on), then the sudden
| proliferation of other publishers from EA to UbiSoft and
| now Epic.
|
| Does it require significant overhead for developers to
| support multiple stores? I'm sure it isn't free. But is
| it significantly detrimental to them? I'm not sure. Valve
| has been criticized over Steam's former near-monopoly of
| the gaming digital distribution market[0]. At least the
| present situation gives them alternatives to work with.
| The AAA publisher stores are often derided, but more from
| a consumer standpoint than a developer perspective.
| Having a ton of game installers and store accounts to
| manage is a pain. It's definitely not frictionless. But
| again, you're arguing on behalf of developers, and I'm
| not sure if they're unhappy with having more choices than
| just Steam.
|
| > There will be exactly the same platform, but a whole
| load of additional predatory business to deal with.
|
| Again, you have to provide examples in other segments
| where Facebook, Microsoft, et al have successfully
| created trouble for developers by offering them (and
| developers) more choices.
|
| [0] https://www.polygon.com/2017/5/16/15622366/valve-
| gabe-newell...
| zepto wrote:
| I assume your argument invoking Android as a model wasn't
| in bad faith, and I can certainly dismiss the conclusions
| of it in good faith too, because it is inapplicable as a
| model.
|
| And no - I don't have to provide examples of where
| Facebook, Microsoft etc, have already "caused trouble".
| It just has to be reasonable to expect them to want to
| compete, and to employ commonly used tactics that are not
| necessarily good for developers or consumers. That is all
| I am suggesting. Facebook and Microsoft have been hyper
| competitive companies who generally do whatever they can
| get away with. Neither are known as friends of either
| developers or consumers, although I accept that Microsoft
| has been doing better since they have been an underdog.
| This is common knowledge.
|
| As for opening up the Apple opening the App Store on
| their own terms, or indeed a bootcamp solution enabling
| people to do whatever they want with the hardware: I'm
| actually in favor of these, and I think talking about
| them is constructive.
|
| What I am not in favor of is Epic winning a court
| supervised solution, and I separately think that simply
| assuming that more choices are better is a dangerous
| dogma that could easily make things a lot worse.
|
| I actually strongly believe we need the smartphone
| software environment to be opened, but the path by which
| that occurs and the nature of the openness obtained is
| very important to whether there is a net gain for anyone
| other than the already rich and powerful.
| Apocryphon wrote:
| > I assume your argument invoking Android as a model
| wasn't in bad faith, and I can certainly dismiss the
| conclusions of it in good faith too, because it is
| inapplicable as a model.
|
| Why is it inapplicable? Because Google is behind it
| instead of Apple?
|
| > And no - I don't have to provide examples of where
| Facebook, Microsoft etc, have already "caused trouble".
|
| Then you have no evidence substantiating your claims.
|
| > Neither are known as friends of either developers or
| consumers, although I accept that Microsoft has been
| doing better since they have been an underdog.
|
| You are bringing moral weight into this discussion, which
| is fine. However, I would not be willing to assign any
| additional moral weight to Apple either. It does not do
| to assume any company- especially one in the same realm
| of financial success- is particularly more virtuous or
| honest than others, nor incapable of predatory business
| tactics of its own.
|
| > What I am not in favor of is Epic winning a court
| supervised solution
|
| And that is the crux. I do not favor Epic, but I
| recognize that they are the first to put skin in the game
| as far as grousing over App Store policies go. They are a
| necessary evil in terms of forcing Apple's leadership to
| recognize that App Store policy is worth a reexamination.
| Without a challenge, Apple management is content to
| pursue its present course without recognition that there
| is indeed a world outside of Cupertino. They have perhaps
| the highest market cap of any corporation in history-
| they're no underdog in this tale. But I also don't care
| about Epic _in the context of this discussion_. We can
| map out ways in which Apple could open up iOS without
| dragging in Epic 's legal demands into this.
|
| > I actually strongly believe we need the smartphone
| software environment to be opened, but the path by which
| that occurs and the nature of the openness obtained is
| very important to whether there is a net gain for anyone
| other than the already rich and powerful.
|
| I agree with that.
| nxc18 wrote:
| The basis for this belief is that Epic also sued Google
| Play for creating the existing conditions that you
| describe. Epic doesn't want to turn iOS into Android
| (which is bad enough on its own), they want to open the
| floodgates on Android, too.
| Apocryphon wrote:
| But I don't care about Epic, nor am I talking about them.
| I'm talking about the hypothetical scenario where Apple
| allows alternative app stores to exist. I'm not framing
| this under Epic's terms.
| bogwog wrote:
| There is so much wrong with everything you're saying, but
| I am not going to spend the time to point it all out,
| especially since you seem to have thoroughly convinced
| yourself that these assumptions are true.
|
| But I'll just point this out:
|
| > sell on multiple stores and comply with multiple sets
| of store rules just to access the same set of consumers
| is a massive disadvantage.
|
| The only way this _might_ be a problem is if all of the 1
| billion+ iOS users were your customers, because then
| _maybe_ some of them might decide to stop using the
| appstore completely, and _maybe_ that 'd happen instantly
| over night. Then _maybe_ you 'd have to publish your app
| on a second store (which would mean selling your app for
| a second time to those users who decided to leave the app
| store and never look back).
|
| But regardless, if you have 1 billion customers,
| supporting a second or third for 40th store is not going
| to incur any significant costs. In fact, it might even
| lower them as most competing stores would likely
| distribute to both Android and iOS at the same time
| (Google Play would undoubtedly start selling iOS apps).
| Plus there will 100% be third party services for managing
| store pages across all the stores out there for a nominal
| fee (or even for free).
| zepto wrote:
| This makes no sense.
|
| If you are a new app developer and there was just one
| additional store, which had just 15% of user attention,
| you'd have to support it or lose 15% of potential
| revenue.
|
| This is more than likely as Facebook would almost
| certainly start selling apps directly through the feed.
| Aldo_MX wrote:
| Then don't install the other stores.
|
| (That's how people who say "then don't use Apple devices"
| sounds like).
| threeseed wrote:
| So you've turned the situation into an anti-consumer one.
|
| As a consumer I would then lose access to a significant
| proportion of apps.
| zepto wrote:
| That sounds like you conceding that it would be a bad
| situation.
|
| One can think that the current situation has problems and
| also see that the remedy will make things much worse.
| These are not in contradiction.
| Aldo_MX wrote:
| Not having choices is a bad situation. I would be
| surprised if you thought otherwise.
|
| Imagine not being able to ditch the App Store the way
| publishers have done so in the Mac App Store:
|
| https://bohemiancoding.tumblr.com/post/134322691555/leavi
| ng-...
|
| https://panic.com/blog/coda-2-5-and-the-mac-app-store/
|
| https://sixcolors.com/post/2014/10/bbedit-at-max-q/
|
| Imagine an App Store update breaking all of your apps:
|
| https://techcrunch.com/2015/11/18/apple-acknowledges-mac-
| app...
|
| The App Store approach basically gives you 1 choice if
| you're uneasy with the status quo: To get out.
| riversflow wrote:
| >Not having choices is a bad situation. I would be
| surprised if you thought otherwise.
|
| really? I completely disagree, let me illustrate. I don't
| have much choice of toilet paper when I go to the
| bathroom, especially in a public restroom. Theres usually
| only one dispenser, but somehow nobody cares, no one is
| asking the government to regulate for every Walmart in
| the country to offer dispensers for every manufacturer,
| or to regulate residential construction so that every
| bathroom has one of those industrial size dispensers (or
| space to install one!) so homeowners can use the jumbo
| rolls seen in public restrooms. But let's play pretend
| and imagine if every time you went to use a public
| restroom there were 8 different toilet papers in the
| stall. What benefit would that serve, and how would it be
| a better situation vs the "bad situation" of no choice in
| toilet paper? Sure, its a bad situation for Charmin as
| the only toilet paper offered at thousands of Walmarts in
| the US is probably some cheap Marathon or Georgia-Pacific
| product, but is it really a social responsibility to make
| sure that every public restroom has a selection of toilet
| papers? I would be surprised if you thought that choice
| would be good here. Given my assumption, why is it not a
| social responsibility to demand toilet paper choice, and
| how is toilet paper choice different than app store
| choice? Serious question, because they seem about
| equivalent to me.
|
| Moreover, I detest this type of pointless choice in most
| areas of my life because it is an absolute waste of my
| time and mental resources. Choice is good for _macro
| economic_ reasons, not social reasons, and sometimes its
| not even good for micro economic reasons[1]. It allows
| for competition in a marketplace, driving down prices as
| a typical consequence. However competition is also
| typically a waste of resources, whether it 's the
| consumer's time or engineering costs for
| duplicate/redundant products/factories/supply chains, and
| it can certainly lead to lower consumer satisfaction.
|
| Your links are from a developer's point of view, but like
| it or not developers are businesses, and Apple and the
| government don't exist to serve them, they exist to serve
| everyone(or in Apple's case their shareholders and by
| extension everyone who can afford an iPhone), developers
| are a small minority of that everyone. It sucks for those
| developers, sure, but business is rough as a rule, and I
| find this whole "but the app developers" like a bad joke.
| I'd be interested in an example of another cottage
| industry like app development that got some sort of
| regulation on stores similar to this. Honestly it seems
| if we look at precedent in the economy, usually this sort
| of intervention is anti-consumer; the dealership model
| for car sales drives car prices _up_ 10% [2], for
| example.
|
| I think small developers should be _fearful_ of this
| lobby. App development could be a _lot_ more regulated,
| considering the amount of personal information on a phone
| and the importance of them in modern life, it seems crazy
| that the production of eggs is so much more tightly
| regulated than the production of phone applications. I
| could probably bounce back from getting salmonella in a
| month or less, but if all the information on my iphone
| got stolen and used maliciously it would take me years to
| recover my identity, if I ever did. I wouldn 't be
| surprised if this is the next type of thing that this
| lobby went after. Let's create a government body to do
| randomized security audits on smart phone applications,
| with arcane and pointless rules. Seriously, check out the
| laws in the US on the sale and farming of eggs and then
| tell me you want to let big business get the government
| involved in regulating apps.
|
| [1]https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1016/j.jcps
| .2014....
| [2]https://www.mercatus.org/publications/regulation/auto-
| franch...
| zepto wrote:
| Developers won't have more choices. They'll be forced to
| support all the stores that have a significant set of
| customers.
| judge2020 wrote:
| It's also a no-brainer from the business and marketing side.
| Unless Apple somehow forces certain rules on third-party app
| stores to require their apps to comply with advertising,
| tracking, and security measures, there's no reason for these
| third party app stores to care if the apps they have on their
| store track the user for advertising via something other than
| the tracking identifier - they'd all bypass the tracking
| consent popup via fingerprinting and other techniques.
| clansimus wrote:
| Because "great for developers" just shouldn't matter. It should
| be about what the consumers want.
| strictnein wrote:
| The developers are the ones being abused by Apple, so yeah,
| it should matter.
|
| Companies shouldn't be allowed to abuse their market
| dominance, regardless of whether the abused are other
| companies or consumers.
| tombert wrote:
| A worse time for developers means worse apps, worse apps
| means less-happy consumers. They aren't mutually exclusive.
| tshaddox wrote:
| That's absolutely not true. Developers can and often do
| have a hostile relationship with consumers who use their
| software. The most obvious example of this is malware
| developers. Operating systems and software distribution
| platforms often have rules to prevent malware. That's
| clearly a restriction on developers but (if done well) it
| means better apps for consumers. I think the same can be
| said for less obvious cases, like adware, tracking, shady
| free trial or subscription plans, bait and switch pricing
| in e-commerce, and many other antipatterns or dark
| patterns.
| therouwboat wrote:
| Im pretty unhappy with epic store exlusives since they have
| no linux client.
| dodobirdlord wrote:
| It doesn't follow at all that a worse time for developers
| means worse apps or less-happy consumers. Any time Apple
| enforces any kind of standard it's "worse for developers".
| I'm sure lots of developers are annoyed with Apple's
| approach to fine-grained and highly visible app
| permissions, and wish they could just have full access to
| the user's device. Screwing those people over is obviously
| good.
| tombert wrote:
| > It doesn't follow at all that a worse time for
| developers means worse apps or less-happy consumers
|
| Sure, it's not guaranteed to be a net positive for
| consumers but it's correlated.
|
| Admittedly not exactly the same, but the Sega Saturn had
| trouble attracting developers because it was really
| difficult to develop on, despite the hardware being
| pretty good. As a result, people who bought a Saturn
| ended up getting fewer and worse versions of games.
|
| I agree that they shouldn't necessarily always always do
| everything to appeal to developers, there's a balance,
| and I'm not suggesting that we get rid of community
| guidelines and the like, I'm just saying that the more
| difficult it is for a developer (or anyone) to do
| something, the less likely they are to do a good job at
| it, if they do it at at all. Worse apps means a worse
| experience.
| stephc_int13 wrote:
| As a developer I am happy that the end-user can trust the
| platform, this is always better for business.
|
| I think it should be rephrased in this way: what is good
| for the ecosystem is good for the end-users.
| judge2020 wrote:
| And the execs at $adtech23 are absolutely furious about
| that; maybe the developers too, since it makes their job
| harder.
| larme wrote:
| "Developers" nowadays (except some indie shop) are just the
| enemy of user. They try to squeeze money out of users as
| much as possible.
|
| On the other hand Apple try to squeeze money by asking
| consumer to pay the apple tax, but at least they try to be
| reasonable on the privacy issue.
|
| Choose which side you like, or just use open source
| software.
| nicetryguy wrote:
| That's an easy opinion to have when it's not your livelihood.
|
| Does consumer centric focus necessitate draconian developer
| policies?
| yazaddaruvala wrote:
| I appreciate that Apple's high bar makes it harder for
| _all_ iOS developers to make a living. However, with all
| respect, there might just be too many iOS developers.
|
| Apple setting an increasingly high quality bar that weeds
| out the bottom 90% of all iOS developers might seem
| draconian for anyone weeded out but this is competition at
| its finest. It is how markets in general ensure the best
| quality product.
|
| Obviously, there is also the matter of "How much should
| Apple get paid to enforce these policies? Is 30% too high
| for in-app-purchases?" those are good numbers to negotiate.
| But frankly all non-FOSS software products I've encountered
| before and after iOS continually proved they need developer
| policies to ensure they are built to be long-term customer
| centric.
| tshaddox wrote:
| Many people's livelihood is malware development, probably
| including many people who think it's unethical and would
| prefer to have another livelihood if there was an option. I
| genuinely feel bad for those people, but I still think
| blocking malware is the right decision for an OS or
| software distribution platform.
| cafed00d wrote:
| > That's an easy opinion to have when it's not your
| livelihood.
|
| Isn't this sensationalist?
|
| Developers, just like Apple or any other software maker,
| can be incentivized to work _against_ the consumer. PC on
| '00s had many developers whose livelihood compelled them to
| bundle their apps as "free trials" in PCs. As a user, I had
| to deal with pop-up after pop-up asking me to buy the full
| thing; each of those apps took up disk space, power and,
| most importantly, my brain cells. ugh.
|
| Developer livelihoods are not as important as a
| frustration-free user experience.
|
| >Does consumer centric focus necessitate draconian
| developer policies?
|
| >Who do you think makes all of those wonderful apps
| "consumers want" anyway?
|
| Agreed. Apps from 3rd party devs makes the user experience
| wonderful. But not _solely_ because of the developer.
| nicetryguy wrote:
| >>> Because "great for developers" just shouldn't matter.
| It should be about what the consumers want.
|
| >> That's an easy opinion to have when it's not your
| livelihood.
|
| > Isn't this sensationalist?
|
| No.
| tmotwu wrote:
| Not exactly sure if it's astroturfing, but there's definitely
| been a lot of non-devs commenting on this issue.
|
| You can see this when they go off on some security tangent
| while the App Store is in fact host to thousands of malware in
| disguise. They trust that Apple is manually reviewing each and
| every App for security holes, that's why the App Store exists
| in the first place and totally why there's a 30% toll. I'm
| starting to imagine it's not really about security but about
| the illusion of security for a lot of people.
| temp667 wrote:
| "illusion"? It's relative security.
|
| On the iphone, if I buy a used phone and a scammer has popped
| a cheapo battery in to show no battery life slow down - apple
| alerts me (also unpopular on HN BTW).
|
| If I buy an android phone from most carriers, their
| "security" involved pre-loading it with unremovable adware
| and tracking apps. This is more secure - are you serious?
|
| The google play store has less malware? The permissions
| process for android apps has been terrible.
|
| With apple, I can now give apps access to specific photos in
| my camera roll, it works great. It alerts me to folks doing
| background tracking and makes it easy to turn off (even after
| I said yes earlier).
|
| What's nuts is that developers don't understand why consumers
| benefit or like this and want the DOJ to blow open this
| little bubble of sanity so they can push their crapware
| through or their auto-billing app stores through.
| tmotwu wrote:
| In the meantime, nothing stops a scammer from selling you a
| jailbroken device.
|
| App permissioning has nothing to do with the App Store and
| it's hostile policies towards developers. You can set the
| same permissioning rules on rival devices as well.
|
| The false narrative that the App Store exists to protect
| you needs to be dispelled forever. The trust consumers have
| to install any App in the App Store is far more terrifying.
| temp667 wrote:
| Apple as an ecosystem that emphasizes trust. They believe
| they can charge a premium for this. Whether you think
| this should be "dispelled forever" is up to you - feel
| free to market your carriers phone however you want.
|
| The app store, as the method that pricing, refunds,
| subscriptions etc are handled, is part of this story of
| trust or lack of trust.
|
| And yes - apple does review use of permission by
| developers upon submission. Want to use a touch bar api,
| they may ask you to show how that feature is used in app
| (third party libs would use these features to help
| fingerprint machines etc). The irony - we've had people
| here complaining about how unfair it was their app was
| rejected (often because they link without knowing to some
| scam monetization library that abuses or tries to abuse
| apis).
|
| What is incredible is that developers on HN seem to have
| no clue why people actually like what apple does. For
| example, when they notified you that you had a non-
| genuine battery - that was met with HN outrage. When they
| did things that made replacing certain key security
| sensitive parts harder (finger print sensor for unlock
| etc) - again outrage, and apparently they figured out a
| way to make it easier without losing security.
|
| The name of the game these days is trust. Do you trust
| you telecom to ship a bloat free phone? Apple? The folks
| who have that trust are going to be able to charge a
| premium and gain more control.
|
| The desire to have consumers installing any app from
| anywhere on the web that you can browse to using the web
| browser is FAR FAR more terrifying - but is what HN
| comments push over and over. Reality - when it comes time
| to buy their kids a phone, these same outraged HN folks -
| buy their kids an iphone :)
| spideymans wrote:
| >What is incredible is that developers on HN seem to have
| no clue why people actually like what apple does.
|
| "It is difficult to get a man to understand something
| when his salary depends upon his not understanding it." -
| Upton Sinclair.
| temp667 wrote:
| So true. They are so busy optimizing their dark patterns
| they don't understand why - in the big picture - clear
| pricing on subscriptions, easy cancellations etc - helps
| the entire ecosystem and brand. It's the tragedy of the
| commons I think.
| tmotwu wrote:
| And yet, all top 10 apps currently on the App Store are
| considered the worst repeated violators of data privacy.
|
| There's no need to pretend to be naive, PII does in fact
| go beyond telemetric touchbar behavior or your
| fingerprint sensor. The rest of what you said continues
| to have nothing to do with App Store review processes.
| Udik wrote:
| Security and privacy are just like those 200 metres
| waterproof watches they were selling in the '80s. Most people
| who bought them hardly went deeper than their bathtub.
|
| You buy the concept, and caring about the expensive details
| is a nice signal of affluence and self-esteem (I _deserve_
| this much security & privacy).
| nerfhammer wrote:
| tangent, but that 200M rated depth matters even if you
| don't go deep underwater because it's only rated for static
| pressure, i.e. when the device/water aren't moving.
| Thrashing your arm around underwater will create momentary
| pressures much greater than the static pressure of a few
| feet of water. The temporary pressure from a wave at the
| beach hitting you can easily ruin a 50M watch.
| dang wrote:
| Please don't post insinuations about astroturfing. That's in
| the site guidelines:
| https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
|
| Unless people have specific evidence, the overwhelming
| majority of the time, these perceptions turn out to be
| illusory. Other commenters having different views than one's
| own does not constitute specific evidence (or rather, it's
| evidence merely that a topic is divisive). Plenty of past
| explanation here: https://hn.algolia.com/?query=astroturf%20b
| y:dang&sort=byDat...
| fanatic2pope wrote:
| Support for Epic never took root on HN because techno-
| entrepreneurs see themselves not as mere fart app developers
| but as temporarily embarrassed billionaire monopolists.
| threeseed wrote:
| Support for Epic never took root anywhere.
|
| Because everyone can see Epic for what they are: a billion
| dollar company who wants their own monopoly.
|
| Do you think Fortnite will be available on competing stores ?
| hnra wrote:
| > Do you think Fortnite will be available on competing
| stores?
|
| The play store seems to indicate this to be the case. Epic
| released Fortnite on both their own store, and the play
| store no?
| Razengan wrote:
| What about Steam, and why not?
|
| What if I don't want to instal Epic's store but still
| play Fortnite?
|
| Where is my "user choice"?
| dybber wrote:
| Buy a different game from another developer.
| vultour wrote:
| Cool, in the same vein they can fuck off from iPhones if
| they don't like the conditions.
| spideymans wrote:
| Idk about that. The iOS developers I've seen have largely
| been supportive of Epic's actions, even Epic's motivations
| might be unsavoury. It's the users that have pushed back, out
| of fear that a more "open" iOS could turn their iPhone into a
| Windows XP-esque privacy, security and UX nightmare.
| gruez wrote:
| >but as temporarily embarrassed billionaire monopolists.
|
| I don't think anyone seriously thinks that. The
| counterarguments I've seen boil down to:
|
| * apple's control on the app store is a net benefit for
| consumers
|
| * we shouldn't be regulating it; consumers should be able to
| choose themselves
|
| * fuck epic (because of their prior misdeeds)
| mrguyorama wrote:
| I support opening up Apple's ecosystem, but I don't support
| Epic. They say they want to give user's the freedom to
| choose, yet they took a video game I purchased away from my
| chosen storefront (rocket league being taken off of steam)
|
| Where's my user choice Epic?
| baby wrote:
| rocket league is going free to play so I guess your wish is
| becoming reality :)
| threeseed wrote:
| Doesn't negate the point.
|
| Epic would have exclusives not available on other stores.
| boring_twenties wrote:
| Google does the same shit. I bought Shadowrun: Dragonfall
| from the Play Store and it was later removed without any
| warning or trace. Not coincidentally, that was the last
| money I will ever spend on the Play Store.
| lewdev wrote:
| Instead of complaining to one company, why not start supporting
| alternative platforms and products that support their cause like
| Ubuntu Software Store and Samsung Store? Why not support open
| devices where developers and consumers will have freedom from
| exorbitant pricing?
| Razengan wrote:
| Oh _fuck_ Tinder:
|
| In addition to being riddled with scammers and "escort" services
| in some regions and choosing to do nothing about it, _older men
| are charged more for using Tinder 's premium service:_
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24129986
|
| I do not respect Tinder at all. They have scummy practices and I
| actually got upset with Apple for giving them featured spots on
| the App Store so often. Talk about biting the hand that feeds
| you!
|
| On the other hand, Apple unconditionally refunded my Tinder in-
| app purchase when I fell to one of their scams.
|
| Seeing Tinder in any group will just make me automatically align
| with that group's antipode.
| asou wrote:
| Chaotic evil.
|
| I'm all for them being shitty enough to drive people off the
| platform.
|
| https://techcrunch.com/2014/02/20/problem-in-tinder-dating-a...
|
| Sounds real fun! Of course unless you do your research you'd
| never find out how little they care about user safety.
|
| Since I'm ranting, I don't see getting trapped in the Social
| Media matrix as being good for anyone. The old fashioned way to
| meet folks was to be active in your community. Since that's now
| seen as optional we have an entire generation of isolated
| miserable people.
|
| The Social Media Dilemma ( Netflix movie )goes into greater
| detail , but you need real life human interaction to function.
| I know I've had no issue making friends (etc), since I became
| social media free.
|
| The world is an awesome place. Instead of wasting money on
| Tinder Passport, you can get a real passport and see new
| places. A flight to Europe can be as low as 300$ !
| erwinkle wrote:
| LOL why does their hero have an android phone
| bredren wrote:
| Epic went about this all wrong. They should have started by
| making a public campaign touting their support of developers
| using Unreal Engine in the App Store.
|
| Epic should have started by offering to cover half of Apple's App
| Store fee for Unreal Engine devs, and made the story about
| supporting their own developers AND about how Apple was charging
| too much.
|
| Any coalition should have been with other companies doing the
| same thing with people building on their platforms. This would
| have gotten much more positive and sustainable publicity and
| would have allowed them to make the case that all developers
| should be paying less fees.
|
| Instead they made it about Fortnite and themselves. Epic blew
| this.
| vonwoodson wrote:
| But, can we just say: f _ck Fortnite. This is the wolf calling
| for homes to be built of straw. We hate "free to play" /"pay to
| win" and in-app purchases. We _HATE* them. Thank god that Apple
| is taking a stand. I haven't been so happy with a company since
| they refused to unlock that dude's phone in California a few
| years back. (Which, I know, the lawsuit ended the same day an iOS
| "security" patch came out.) Seriously. If you can't make money by
| playing by the rules, GTFO.
| mthoms wrote:
| >Thank god that Apple is taking a stand.
|
| What exactly is Apple doing to combat the scourge of "free to
| play"/"pay to win" and in-app purchases? From where I'm
| sitting, they seem perfectly fine with it (as long as they get
| their cut).
| la_oveja wrote:
| How is Fortnite "pay to win"?
| dragonwriter wrote:
| > We hate "free to play"/"pay to win" and in-app purchases.
|
| While I'm not a Fortnite player, I thought Fortnite was known
| for _not_ being pay-to-win, with IAP being for cosmetic
| options, not in-game advantages; basically selling digital
| collectibles you can show off while playing.
|
| I think there is a pretty big ethical differentiation between
| that and F2P games that have you pay for in-game advantages
| (with the Wargaming.net model where you pay for in-game options
| that are mostly not competitive advantages but broaden the
| scope of play choices [because most of the competitive
| advantage is compensated in matchmaking] somewhere in between.)
|
| Not all F2P + IAP models are the same.
| strig wrote:
| Completely disagree. Although I don't play Fortnite, their
| monetization model is fine. There is no pay to win (don't
| conflate that with free to play), the only things you can pay
| for are the battle pass and cosmetic skins. Apex and many other
| games use this model and it's ultimately good for the consumer
| in my experience.
| colinmhayes wrote:
| Horrible take. Doesn't matter what you think of fortnite(it's
| not pay to win) Epic succeeding in making their own app store
| would be incredible for developers and consumers. You seem to
| be blinded by some sort of misguided rage.
| Apocryphon wrote:
| Apple just complied with an FBI subpoena this past month:
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24495707
| seahawks78 wrote:
| Correct me if I am wrong but the advocacy group is essentially
| arguing that let me use your platform (marketplace) services and
| get a free ride doing so. Kind of like taking an Uber where at
| the end of the ride the driver just says: "you know what, lets
| ditch Uber, pull out your credit card and settle between the two
| of us. And I will charge you much lower!!" Aha.
| jdauriemma wrote:
| I don't think "free ride" has ever described developer
| relationships with the App Store. The main pushback seems to be
| against Apple leveraging their App Store to benefit their
| payment processing and other services that have nothing to do
| with distributing software. I think it's more like Uber making
| drivers buy their tires through an "Uber Store" as a condition
| of being on the platform. It's shady and ultimately hurts the
| end user.
| joenathanone wrote:
| The analogy only works if the only way to get to your
| destination was to use Uber. iOS doesn't allow app installs
| outside of the store.
| asou wrote:
| You don't need to use IOS to play games, listen to music or
| date.
|
| You could go down to a record store, hosting a trivia night,
| that's a game. Then buy some records, and talk to a nice
| potential partner.
|
| Done, you've accomplished all of these things without the use
| of IOS!
|
| Less cheeky , you can do all of those things on a PC, on an
| Android device, etc.
| izolate wrote:
| But it's not the only way to get to work. You can use Lyft
| (Android).
| nickysielicki wrote:
| The analogy works perfectly -- nobody has to buy an iPhone.
| pornel wrote:
| I bought an iPhone, and I'm not getting that 30% cut.
| Where's my money?
|
| Apple wants to get paid twice for the same thing. Apple
| sells me a device, and then they sell me (a device user) as
| their product to app developers.
| nickysielicki wrote:
| No, you paid for an iPhone and the iPhone ecosystem. You
| might choose to pay for additional apps, at which point
| Apple takes 30% for acting as a payment processor and for
| quality assurance. No double dipping. The iPhone is
| perfectly usable without any third-party applications.
| It's your choice to spend more money.
|
| The iPhone did not originally have an app store and was
| still highly sought-after. Apple chose to add an app
| store, and has every right to choose to do so under their
| own conditions.
| bilbo0s wrote:
| Spotify?
|
| "The Coalition for", um, "App Fairness"?
|
| Yeah. I guess maybe sometimes you have to make a deal with the
| devil. But as a musician, I can't bring myself to do this one.
| 52-6F-62 wrote:
| This take is as reasonable as any other.
|
| A musician wants to make more money and Spotify fails to pay
| according to that desire and the comment is rejected?
|
| A developer (or megacorp) wants to make more money and Apple
| fails to pay according to that desire and now we're in a
| legitimate discussion?
| mirthflat83 wrote:
| It is very funny to see tile and prepear on the list. Can their
| intentions be any more clearer?
| neokrish wrote:
| I'm not sure how I feel about this. I do appreciate that in the
| Apple ecosystem, "I'm not the product". There is a level of trust
| with their products and services that I do feel thankful for and
| will continue to pay for it. I do not want a different app store.
| I do not want to have apps direct access to the fundamental iOS
| services. Don't get me wrong, I really like a lot of the
| companies that have formed this coalition but I don't think their
| ask is right. I cannot honestly read about the impact to
| democracy, primarily because we are unable to define and protect
| what is private data and what is public, and then agree to what
| is being asked for by this coalition of partners.
|
| However they promise to safeguard the data, I don't think they
| have a sound business model / sound business principles / a long
| enough pedigree of protecting user data for me to trust them. I
| also see what all of this is about - just a redistribution of the
| pot of money. This is not about anti-competitiveness, this is not
| about an Apple Tax hurting consumers
| (https://www.theverge.com/21445923/platform-fees-apps-games-b...)
|
| I honestly hope that if Apple does lose the anti-trust case, that
| they split the iPhone into one that allows these non-Apple stores
| and services and another that offers a Apple managed ecosystem.
|
| I for sure will chose the one that is governed by Apple.
| AlexandrB wrote:
| From https://appfairness.org/our-vision/
|
| > No app store owner should prohibit third parties from offering
| competing app stores on the app store owner's platform, or
| discourage developers or consumers from using them.
|
| I don't disagree but does this mean Sony should allow, for
| example, Steam to be installed on the PS5? Or is the definition
| of "App Store" used here narrow and arbitrary?
| zhobbs wrote:
| Maybe it should be something like, "if your platform doesn't
| allow side loading of other apps, or other app stores, then the
| store on that platform can take no more than X% commission on
| sales"
| gowld wrote:
| Does Steam allow side loading into it's launcher/library?
| likeclockwork wrote:
| Yes, yes it does.
|
| There is a menu item labeled 'Add A Non-Steam Game To My
| Library', after adding you can also use steam's
| compatibility tools (Proton, or DOSBox or whatever custom
| compatibility tools) with the games as well.
| zhobbs wrote:
| Windows, Linux, and Mac do. I'm proposing this scoped just
| to device+OS combo that you purchased.
| ajford wrote:
| Steam isn't a platform, it's an alternate app store. The
| Platform is PC/Mac/Linux. And they each have their own
| native app store.
|
| PC has the Microsoft Store, Mac has the App Store, and
| Linux has it's own distro repositories depending on flavor.
|
| SteamOS is just a tweaked Debian distribution, and you have
| full control of the os, so you can install any competing
| software you want.
| burlesona wrote:
| Yes, it means Sony has to add Steam to PS5 or else it is narrow
| and arbitrary.
|
| To me the iPhone is a console, end of story. If you like the
| console experience, it's a great device. If you don't, there
| are a million android and even alternative OS based phones out
| there which are more like a PC. If you want your phone to be a
| PC, you should do what most people around the world do and buy
| one of those.
|
| Instead we have these companies who are trying to force Apple
| to sell PCs instead of consoles. It's in their business
| interests, so I get it. But I hope it doesn't work, because
| there are a lot of us (myself included) who really LIKE the
| console experience, both on iPhone and on PS4, and don't want a
| PC experience on those devices.
| sushid wrote:
| This is so ridiculous. Do you sign into your bank or trade
| stocks on your XBox? Where would you access important
| documents outside of your desktop/laptop?
| M4v3R wrote:
| Playstation Network does store my credit card details on
| file for future purchases. It stores my personal data. It
| also has a web browser that could be used for pretty much
| anything.
| Dahoon wrote:
| No it does not. Sony isn't like Apple. I can freely buy
| things in / for PlayStation games with my credit card. Not so
| in iOS apps. There all payment goes through Apple, taking an
| additional 30% cut above the 30% cut of the app price.
| Neither Sony, Microsoft or Nintendo does this.
| joshstrange wrote:
| This is not true, they all take a cut, please provide proof
| of an app/game on one of these platforms not taking a cut
| if you are going to make a claim like that. It's ~30% but
| it can vary.
| sithlord wrote:
| pretty sure if you buy an item (game, controller, etc) FOR
| a playstation, they are paying sony a royalty to produce
| that item.
| izacus wrote:
| > To me the iPhone is a console, end of story.
|
| This would be true if iPhone would be only a toy. But it's
| also the only source of person-to-person communication,
| source of news and primary computing device for large part of
| USA population.
|
| And that makes it very different from a PS5. By market share.
| By use. By impact. And IMPACT is what we're measuring here.
| burlesona wrote:
| The fact that is is my primary communication device is the
| REASON I want my iPhone to be a console. I'm paying extra
| for it.
|
| But this is very important: Nobody has to buy an iPhone.
| The majority of people around the world buy Android, which
| does allow side-loading. If you need side-loading as a
| feature, you have many, many options available.
|
| There's no coercion of consumers going on. There's no
| mandate to buy an iPhone or to use any part of the Apple
| ecosystem, and there are abundant alternatives.
|
| Ultimately these arguments against the Apple model are very
| judgmental and paternalistic. "I think that Experience X is
| the only morally right thing, thus society must prohibit
| people who bought and like Experience Y from enjoying it,
| because I think it's morally wrong."
|
| To me that's a really dangerous line of thinking, and I
| hope it fails in court.
| M4v3R wrote:
| Where do you draw the line, though? PlayStation / Xbox are
| basically computers from a technical standpoint. They have
| hundreds of millions of users. They also store your
| personal data and credit card information should you
| provide it.
| Apocryphon wrote:
| Apple seems to be portraying them as (potentially) life-
| saving technologies, for one thing
|
| https://www.macrumors.com/2018/12/06/apple-watch-real-
| storie...
| threeseed wrote:
| That article is referring to the Apple Watch.
| Apocryphon wrote:
| Sure- a device that relies on iOS and iPhones (for now)
| to operate.
| mantap wrote:
| The only people who have only a PlayStation or Xbox as
| their single computer - no phone, no laptop, just a games
| console - are kids.
| realusername wrote:
| > To me the iPhone is a console, end of story.
|
| Not to consumers, it's replacing the computer market
| (especially in the developed world) and even Apple themselves
| market their products as computer replacements.
| vlozko wrote:
| But that shouldn't be an imposition on Apple to make an
| identical experience to what it's replacing. It can be both
| a console and a replacement to a computer. The intended
| purpose of the two can be the same but have a different way
| of going about it.
| Razengan wrote:
| > _To me the iPhone is a console, end of story. If you like
| the console experience, it's a great device. If you don't,
| there are a million android and even alternative OS based
| phones out there which are more like a PC. If you want your
| phone to be a PC, you should do what most people around the
| world do and buy one of those._
|
| This! A hundred times over, and over again.
|
| An iPhone is an iPhone, competing with a million other phones
| (well, maybe thousands).
|
| An iPad however, is another story, as Apple themselves like
| to push it as a general purpose "computer". Maybe that's why
| they forked out iPadOS, so that if they're ever forced to
| make changes based on device classification they could limit
| those changes to the iPad?
| strictnein wrote:
| The discussion here is about App Stores.
|
| Apple has one, which is the dominant one in the US. Most of
| the rest of the mobile app market is controlled by Google.
| gowld wrote:
| "console" doesn't mean much. Phone is special because for how
| humans actually live, having one phone is strong preferred
| over 5. But habit consoles isn't as much of a big deal. And
| despite what the binary thinkers claim, how humans actually
| live matters in law, at least as long as companies insist
| upon the peculiar formation of intellectual property rights.
| mthoms wrote:
| >To me the iPhone is a console, end of story.
|
| I'm so tired of hearing this ridiculous analogy.
|
| From a purely technical stand point it may be true, but for a
| large chunk of the population, the smartphone is their one
| and only connection to the digital world. It controls their
| connection to their bank accounts, governments,
| news/discourse, family, friends, dating life, education
| (formal and informal), medical information, insurance
| policies, wayfinding, weather forecasts and emergency
| services.
|
| For those with disabilities, it affords them a quality of
| life they might not otherwise have. For others still, it
| contains their most personal thoughts, ideas, dreams and
| memories.
|
| One can certainly argue that because of all that, the app
| ecosystem should be tightly controlled. That's fair. But the
| smartphone has grown beyond a simple "nice-to-have" utility.
| It's a base-level necessity for modern life.
|
| Since this trend is only accelerating, we need to recognize
| that and frame our discussions accordingly.
| bhupy wrote:
| Only 10 years ago, none of what you said was true. Who
| knows what the world will look like 10 years from now.
| Basing policy on the current ephemeral norms rather than
| consistently applied principles seems ill-advised.
|
| Also, even in a world where the mobile phone is that
| ubiquitous and important, there's no inherent societal
| obligation that one absolutely NEEDS to use a particular
| company's phone, especially in a market that has plenty of
| alternatives.
| mthoms wrote:
| My comment was not about a particular company, nor was it
| advocating for any specific policy. It was merely
| illustrating why equating smartphones with consoles is
| foolish and lazy.
|
| >Basing policy on the current ephemeral norms rather than
| consistently applied principles seems ill-advised.
|
| I agree. What "consistently applied principle" did you
| interpret my comment to be against?
| bhupy wrote:
| > I agree. What "consistently applied principle" did you
| interpret my comment to be against?
|
| The principle that would be applied when considering game
| consoles. In other words, it's not "foolish" or "lazy",
| rather it is what consistently applying a principle looks
| like in practice. The perceived difference between user
| behavior or criticality on big glass app-based
| smartphones vs consoles is ephemeral.
| mthoms wrote:
| >The principle that would be applied when considering
| game consoles.
|
| What "principle" is that, _specifically_? I genuinely don
| 't understand.
|
| Is it my usage of disparaging terms? If so, that's fair.
| If not, can you articulate _why_ the idea put forth that
| it 's useless to compare consoles and smartphones is
| somehow violating a "first principle".
|
| What first principle does that idea violate?
| DivisionSol wrote:
| Making laws based on ephemeral societal standards lays
| groundwork for abuse. I would rather a law on the
| technicality of things, than opinions and feelings.
| threeseed wrote:
| Note that I can do all of that with my Sony TV.
|
| And this idea that a smartphone is a necessity is
| ridiculous given that most of the world doesn't have one.
| mthoms wrote:
| Most of the world doesn't have toilets, running water or
| democratically elected governments either. But in the
| west those are still considered "necessities".
|
| I'm not equating the need for a smartphone with the above
| things, of course. The point is that "necessity" in this
| context is relative to those you compete with, and is not
| a binary black or white. It's a scale of grey.
|
| In my opinion, having an informed, engaged, educated, and
| well connected populace is indeed a necessity. The
| smartphone (+ the internet) facilitates that better than
| any invention since the printing press IMHO.
| sugarpile wrote:
| It's interesting you bring up disabilities since forcing
| apple to open up to other app stores will likely harm
| accessibility.
|
| Accessibility on iOS is second to none. I be surprised if
| many disabled users were in the "open up iOS" camp.
| mthoms wrote:
| I agree actually. This is indeed a great argument _for_
| Apple 's approach.
|
| FYI, I'm not necessarily in the _" open up IOS"_ camp. In
| my comment above I'm only claiming to be in the _"
| equating smartphones with consoles is lazy"_ camp :-)
| jVinc wrote:
| > But the smartphone has grown beyond a simple "nice-to-
| have" utility.
|
| Lets frame the discussion accordingly indeed. Not all
| gaming machines are consoles and not all smartphones are
| iPhones. Why should we prevent Sony from providing a
| console just because the PC is much more than a nice-to-
| have utility and their console competes with PC's? Apple is
| not a monopoly, and they are not even the majority of smart
| phones. Why should they be forced not to deliver a console
| experience (that many even if not the majority enjoy)
| simply because the category as a whole is an essential
| utilty?
|
| Why should we enforce through law what can be perfectly
| well accomplished by people voting with their feet and just
| buying the smartphone devices that aren't walled gardens?
|
| I don't particularly like Pepsi, and rather enjoy coka
| cola, but I'm not going to go out on a mad rager about how
| "cola products are abundant throughout our society, so we
| desperately need to force Pepsi to change their recipe to
| align with coka-colas because otherwise our society is
| going to suffer from drinking bad cola!"
|
| If you don't like iPhones don't buy them. If you don't like
| consol don't buy them. But trying to argue that the pc is
| such a essential utility and that it competes in some
| subset of functionality and that no-one should therefore be
| allowed to produce or own consoles is just absurd.
| mthoms wrote:
| I don't follow what point you're making. I mentioned
| nothing about monopolies, disallowing anyone from making
| a phone or console(?), nor Apple specifically. My comment
| was about smartphones in general.
|
| It's pretty simple. Gaming consoles are primarily (almost
| exclusively) for entertainment.
|
| Smartphones are for accessing information, essential
| services (ie. banking), directions, forecasts, and news.
| They also facilitate communicating with family, friends,
| business associates, emergency services and in many cases
| the government itself. Oh, they also contain our most
| intimate thoughts, plans, ideas and memories.
|
| It's not even comparable. At all.
|
| >I don't particularly like Pepsi, and rather enjoy coka
| cola, but I'm not going to go out on a mad rager ...
|
| Absolutely terrible analogy. How about instead you were
| denied the right to own a smartphone? But were told it's
| okay because hey, you have a console! It's a perfect
| substitute!
| aptgetrekt wrote:
| Lets say theoretically PC gaming didn't exist. If the
| only way to play games was with a console from Sony,
| Microsoft, or Nintendo do you really think they would be
| selling consoles at a loss[1]? PC gaming is what keeps
| consoles priced competitively. If smartphones are like
| consoles, then currently you can only buy consoles. Sure
| Android is a little bit more open than iOS but not by
| much. There's not a problem with the existence of walled
| gardens / console-like devices, but there needs to be
| options available that aren't so restricted. Currently
| 99% of the smartphone market is controlled by Apple and
| Google, neither of which are willing to give up their
| control so I think this is a case where some kind of
| intervention is required to introduce competition.
|
| [1] https://www.cnet.com/news/playstation-4-to-sell-at-a-
| loss-bu...
| burlesona wrote:
| Nothing you are saying is false, but why can't people who
| want a different experience just buy an Android or
| alternative phone? A smartphone may be an essential
| utility, but an _iPhone specifically_ is not.
|
| I feel your argument is like saying I want my car to be
| gas-powered and I want it to be a Tesla. It doesn't matter
| that it that many other manufacturers exist, I demand Tesla
| make gas-powered cars so that I can buy a Tesla and run it
| on the energy source of my choice.
| gowld wrote:
| How does letting me have a PC experience hurt your console
| experience? What gives you the right to force Epic into a
| console experience for everyone?
| vlozko wrote:
| Because it can't be both ways. If tomorrow Facebook decides
| to only offer its app only through Epic App Store,
| consumers now have reckon with a privacy compromised app.
| And Apple now has to spend tons more resources playing a
| failing game of whack a mole closing all sorts of security
| and privacy holes that could have been avoided if the
| misbehaving apps weren't allowed in the first place. Lots
| of people buy an iPhone for the walled garden, peace of
| mind experience.
| Aldo_MX wrote:
| Most of the recent jailbreaks involve Safari
| vulnerabilities, so you don't even need to install an app
| to compromise your iPhone, the walled garden is just
| security through obscurity.
| abc-xyz wrote:
| Let's compare malware on Windows, OSX, Android vs iOS,
| shall we?
| burlesona wrote:
| You can have a PC experience by buying literally any non-
| Apple phone. There are hundreds to choose from. The large
| majority of phones sold around the world are, in fact, not
| made by Apple.
|
| What gives people who prefer the PC experience the right to
| ban consoles from existing?
| bogwog wrote:
| > I don't disagree but does this mean Sony should allow, for
| example, Steam to be installed on the PS5?
|
| That would be great for the hundreds of millions (billions?) of
| consumers and thousands of developers in the global game
| industry, but bad for exactly 3 companies: Sony, Nintendo, and
| Microsoft.
| burlesona wrote:
| It would also largely undo the business model of having
| consoles in the first place, and likely result in there never
| being another gaming console.
|
| Which would be bad for a whole lot of businesses besides
| Sony, Nintendo, and Microsoft, and for a whole bunch of
| consumers who really like the console gaming experience as
| distinct from PC.
| AlexandrB wrote:
| From https://appfairness.org/issues/30-app-tax/
|
| > For most purchases made within its App Store, Apple takes 30%
| of the purchase price. No other transaction fee -- in any
| industry -- comes close.
|
| This is a straight-up lie and Epic, being in the gaming
| industry, knows it. Steam takes the same 30% (unless you're
| huge) and is Epic's direct competitor on PC. Not to mention
| every other gaming platform[1].
|
| [1] https://www.ign.com/articles/2019/10/07/report-
| steams-30-cut...
| foota wrote:
| It might be that steam doesn't consider it a transaction fee?
| (Which is weasley wording imo)
| mthoms wrote:
| I generally support the "fight" against the Apple tax but
| I'd have to agree that this is grossly misleading.
|
| Apple is doing much more than providing transaction
| services in exchange for their cut.
|
| Whether or not what they do is actually worth 30% is up for
| debate (IMHO), but it's dishonest to say that that their
| cut is merely a "transaction fee".
| harrisonjackson wrote:
| Can a developer offer in-app purchases in a Steam downloaded
| game w/ direct payments using stripe or another payment
| processor?
| izacus wrote:
| > This is a straight-up lie and Epic, being in the gaming
| industry, knows it. Steam takes the same 30% (unless you're
| huge) and is Epic's direct competitor on PC. Not to mention
| every other gaming platform[1].
|
| And Epic managed to fight this by offering a store that takes
| a lesser maragin. Something Epic or anyone else is ever
| allowed to do on Apple due to how they deliberately built the
| product.
|
| If anything, the Steam situation is the perfect example of
| how broken the mobile world is when it comes to enabling
| competition.
| sdenton4 wrote:
| I think the the underlying game here is that epic wants to
| run its own app stores. It's not allowed to do that because
| every platform has followed Apple's model and mandated that
| theirs is the one and only app store on each platform.
|
| Otherwise we end up with many app stores, which requires
| users to care about where they get candy crush... You can pay
| more or less at each store, and have different probabilities
| of picking up some terrible malware based on your decisions.
| On the flip side, we might see lots of apps using weird
| disallowed OS functionality in off-brand stores, leading to a
| second round of innovation in apps.
|
| Realistically, it ends with many stores of varying quality
| and mark up. People brainwashed enough to pay the apple tax
| will probably continue paying the apple tax, for the most
| part. But the overall game changes substantially.
| Dahoon wrote:
| It isn't a lie. Steam takes a cut too yes, but Apple takes a
| cut after that 30% you mention. You don't pay 30% to Steam
| from in-app purchases. No one except Apple force you to use
| its payment system and take an additional 30% cut after the
| first 30% cut of the app price. Unless you are a small indie
| developer you end up paying way more to Apple than any other
| platform.
| fhood wrote:
| I don't think this is true. I don't own that many games on
| steam that offer in-app purchases, but monster hunter's
| redirect you to the steam storefront, and steam definitely
| takes their cut of those.
| tannedNerd wrote:
| What? They still force you to list DLC in steam store
| listings and to use the steam system (aka 30%) unless you
| have a special contract with them like apple does with
| Amazon.
| Shivetya wrote:
| Well they never want to take this to its logical conclusion
| which is every manufacturer would have to provide the means for
| anyone, including direct competitors, a means to sell software
| through their device.
|
| So do we also force any app store owner to also provide access
| to their payment services as well? If Apple is forced to open
| the iPhone do they also have to grant access to the phones
| secure means of payments? This sounds like a paradise for world
| intelligence agencies.
|
| So what prevents Apple from permitting third party stores but
| still restricting that only signed and reviewed applications
| can run?
| ViViDboarder wrote:
| Why would they have to open up secure payments? Is that an
| API that first party apps _on the App Store_ access? Or are
| the apps that access it part of the operating system?
|
| This is mostly targeted at apps like Apple Music where Apple
| allows deep Siri integration without allowing the same to
| competing apps.
| stale2002 wrote:
| > which is every manufacturer would have to provide the means
| for anyone, including direct competitors, a means to sell
| software through their device.
|
| Nope! This is not true.
|
| The court case is only regarding companies that have
| significant market power.
|
| So, if a device manufacturer does not have significant market
| power, then the court case, which is regarding section 2 if
| the Sherman anti trust act, would not apply and they would
| not be forced to do anything.
|
| > So what prevents Apple from permitting third party stores
| but still restricting that only signed and reviewed
| applications can run?
|
| What prevents them is that they have significant and durable
| market power, and that their behavior is anti competitive.
| ksk wrote:
| Its a vision document that outlines their vision. Nobody gets
| 100% of what they want anyway.
| ryandrake wrote:
| As a user, I don't want more app stores all over my phone. I
| don't want more app stores all over my game console or PC
| either. Compare it to the Windows gaming world, where if you
| want game 1, you need to go to store A, if you want game 2, you
| need to install store B, if you want game 3, you need to
| install store C. Yuck! What end user wants that hassle?
| ThatPlayer wrote:
| But it's better overall for a user because it allows
| competition for the marketplace. Do you only shop at Walmart
| because it's convenient?
| [deleted]
| Spooks wrote:
| I would definitely want more app stores on my game console.
| Sometimes the deals are just not there, for PC it has a lot
| of options, and it has been good for consumers, Epic store
| has been giving away free games like it was going out of
| business
| dividuum wrote:
| Also why limit to app stores. I want to sell my own cosmetics
| on their fortnite item store (jk, I don't). Valve allows that
| for games like CSGO, if I understand that correctly. The whole
| ,,they build a platform, I want a part" is weird.
| ViViDboarder wrote:
| Because app stores are acting as platforms as well as used to
| restrict third parties and improve first party products. Does
| Fortnite even have a platform for developing cosmetics and
| selling them? If not, then this argument misses the mark.
|
| Consoles do provide salient examples though.
| pb7 wrote:
| Why isn't Epic forced to make it a platform? They have a
| large captive audience with money and I want a cut of it.
| Opening it up to everyone will _drive competition_ to the
| digital skin market, and as we all know from this thread,
| that 's a good thing. Why does Epic get to monopolize their
| game's monetization?
| matsemann wrote:
| Don't argue in bad faith.
| pb7 wrote:
| It may seem that way but I am 100% sincere. Of course,
| those questions are rhetorical because I know what the
| answer I will hear is _and_ I believe the same answer
| applies to Apple. If you believe that rules apply to one
| multi-billion dollar company but not to another, I want
| you to at least sweat a little bit in defending it
| because it sounds absolutely ridiculous to me. The
| conclusion I 'm seeing is that if you want to be a
| consumer-hostile monopoly, you better do it in a market
| that's bigger than all other forms of entertainment but
| isn't critical to day-to-day life like, say, video games.
| colinmhayes wrote:
| If your 100% sincere is so clearly bad faith I think you
| should be banned.
| kazinator wrote:
| "monopolize their game's monetization"
|
| That is a silly oxymoron. One game doesn't constitute a
| monopoly; users who don't like it for whatever reason can
| go play any one of the vast number of games that
| computing has produced for half a century.
|
| What you're saying is like why should Burger King have a
| "monopoly" on what sauce goes into a Whopper? Gosh, darn
| it, the market should be open so that you can order a
| Whopper with MacDonald's Big Mac special sauce.
| pb7 wrote:
| One store doesn't constitute a monopoly either. You can
| go sell in another store.
| bobobob2 wrote:
| You can't on iOS because there is only 1 store.
| treesprite82 wrote:
| Games and sports are usually their own artificial sub-
| context with intentional limitations and scarcity of
| items, rather than following the real-world market and
| having item cost being based on time to develop.
|
| For example it's obvious that you could produce Pikachu
| Illustrator cards (https://i.imgur.com/Q9kUFq8.png) for
| far less than the $200,000 one sold for. Or create a new
| card with arbitrarily high stats.
|
| I don't think it's reasonable to expect regular market
| rules to apply to a game, or vice versa.
| stale2002 wrote:
| > Why does Epic get to monopolize their game's
| monetization?
|
| The answer to this question is quite obviously that the
| smart phone market is much much larger, and has a much
| higher impact on society, than an in game cosmetics
| market.
|
| This is what courts care about. They care about real life
| consumer impact.
|
| And anyone who is not stupid, or intentionally trying to
| mislead people, can understand than the smart phone
| market matters a whole lot more, than an singular in game
| cosmetics market, which means that preventing
| monopolization in the phone market is way more important.
| pb7 wrote:
| How exactly are consumers impacted by Apple's App Store?
| Other than having a consistently good experience where
| they are safe from malicious actors, privacy violations,
| manipulative subscriptions, malware, etc.
| ThatPlayer wrote:
| Not being able to use apps that Apple deem inappropriate:
| there's no PornHub app for anyone who wants that. Or more
| recently Microsoft's xCloud streaming app has been
| blocked even though it's not different than something
| like Netflix.
| pb7 wrote:
| To show good faith, I will wholeheartedly agree that
| allowing Netflix and Spotify but not allowing xCloud,
| Stadia, Facebook Gaming, and now presumably Luna will be
| the straw that breaks the camel's back, moreso than Epic
| et al. There is no practical distinction between
| streaming video frames of The Witcher from Netflix and
| The Witcher 3 from xCloud.
|
| Edit: Genuine question. Is it common for any mix-use
| store, physical or digital, to have hardcore pornography
| available?
| bobobob2 wrote:
| Here are some examples:
| https://appfairness.org/issues/anti-competition/
|
| > Apple has manipulated its rules and policies to
| disadvantage Tile, a popular Bluetooth finding hardware
| and app developer, in favor of its competing Find My App.
|
| > if a Kindle customer wants to purchase an ebook from
| the Kindle iPhone app, they're met with a confusing
| situation: consumers can search for books, even read
| samples, but there's no option to purchase. I
|
| Both are worse for consumers.
| pb7 wrote:
| Take it up with Amazon. Kindle gets a free ride on the
| App Store because they do this. They could allow
| purchasing through the app but they choose not to because
| they don't want to give Apple a cut.
| thatguy0900 wrote:
| Bethesda and valve tried this with skyrim paid mods, it
| didn't go over well and valve canceled it. They tried again
| with creation club, but it's not too popular.
| https://fallout.fandom.com/wiki/Creation_Club#History
| onewhonknocks wrote:
| I think that if you own a store, you should be able to make the
| decision regarding which products you want to stock on your
| shelves.
| gowld wrote:
| If that store isn't a monopoly and the decisions aren't for
| purposes of restraining trade.
| sixstringtheory wrote:
| We aren't dealing with a monopoly, so that's out.
| ThatPlayer wrote:
| What other app store is there on iOS?
| sixstringtheory wrote:
| iOS is a product in a larger market. It is not the market
| itself. There are other products in the market in which
| iOS is a product, and there's nothing stopping more
| entrants (besides the enormous engineering/business
| effort, the likes of which have already been undertaken
| by current players like Apple/Google).
|
| Your argument would be equally invalid if you were to say
| Uber is a monopoly because Lyft can't get a slice of the
| profits from Uber drivers, or that Pepsi is a monopoly
| because Coca-Cola receives no royalties from sales of
| Pepsi products.
|
| Dominoes is not a monopoly. They make pizzas in a market
| that is larger than just Dominoes' pizzas. Nobody could
| reasonably argue that Dominoes is a monopoly just because
| you can't purchase Pizza Hut pizza at a Dominoes
| location.
| ThatPlayer wrote:
| Yes, iOS is a product in a larger market, but I'm talking
| about the Apple App Store itself, not iOS.
|
| The EU has already ruled "Android App Stores" is a market
| which Google is dominate in for example: https://ec.europ
| a.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/IP_18_...
|
| >The Commission decision concludes that Google is
| dominant in the markets for [...] app stores for the
| Android mobile operating system.
|
| It's not a stretch to say iOS apps are another market
| sixstringtheory wrote:
| > Since 2011, Google has imposed illegal restrictions on
| Android device manufacturers and mobile network operators
| to cement its dominant position in general internet
| search.
|
| > In particular, Google:
|
| > - has required manufacturers to pre-install the Google
| Search app and browser app (Chrome), as a condition for
| licensing Google's app store (the Play Store);
|
| > - made payments to certain large manufacturers and
| mobile network operators on condition that they
| exclusively pre-installed the Google Search app on their
| devices; and
|
| > - has prevented manufacturers wishing to pre-install
| Google apps from selling even a single smart mobile
| device running on alternative versions of Android that
| were not approved by Google (so-called "Android forks").
|
| None of this describes anything Apple does. I don't think
| this ruling means what you think it means. It's talking
| about the _combination_ of search engine, licensing the
| OS to hardware vendors, _and_ the Google app store. None
| of those on their own led to this ruling.
|
| It's all about how Google controls the licensing of
| Android, by controlling hardware vendor's licensing of
| other flavors of Android. (edit to add: and how this all
| feeds back into their search engine dominance. That is
| another point the linked document repeats on multiple
| occasions.)
|
| > As a licensable operating system, Android is different
| from operating systems exclusively used by vertically
| integrated developers (like Apple iOS or Blackberry).
| Those are not part of the same market because they are
| not available for licence by third party device
| manufacturers.
| gji wrote:
| Well it depends on what your bar is for a monopoly. E.g.
| I can only use Comcast where I live. Comcast is not
| technically a monopoly - I could move somewhere else
| where other providers are available. But the friction to
| change is high enough that they effectively are a
| monopoly to me.
|
| No company is a monopoly if you are flexible enough.
| Where antitrust starts to become relevant is a bit of an
| arbitrary line. If you think "mobile phones" is the
| industry then Apple does not have a monopoly. But there
| are many people who would put up with a lot before
| switching from iOS to Android, because of apps, iCloud,
| iMessaging, or whatever.
| intrasight wrote:
| I get that Epic and Spotify may want to create their own
| "stores". I don't understand what kind of store Tinder would want
| to create - or perhaps I do ;)
| birdyrooster wrote:
| Why don't they mention the company which started this 30%
| business? Why do they lie about Apple being the only company to
| charge 30% in any industry. What a load of rubbish.
| mattfrommars wrote:
| Simplest thing to do.
|
| Get out of Apple App store and move onto a Google Play, Galaxy
| store and plenty of stores out there.
|
| No need to stick to one.
| chaosharmonic wrote:
| As an Android user, DAE wish we could see some similar
| collaboration across some of the vendors running downstream
| forks? The Apple tax comes up a lot, but there's a whole separate
| conversation to be had about Google Play APIs as a major choke
| point rendering other Android implementations "incompatible."
| Apocryphon wrote:
| That's a great idea, Google shouldn't be exempt from criticism
| and activism just because Android is more open than iOS. It's
| also a good way to put the irritating "why don't you go after
| Google too?" whataboutism that abounds in any discussion that
| critiques Apple.
| newbie578 wrote:
| Good for Epic and co. I wish them the best, and I do hope change
| is coming.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2020-09-24 23:00 UTC)