Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Rethinking the App Store

stratechery.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 350 posts

Re: Rethinking the App Store

#111

Post by mmebane »

lloeki wrote: post #42
supermatt wrote: post #13

I am of the opinion that the only fair option is to allow 3rd party stores with the same permissions as the official app store. Apples curation isn't (as they suggest) preventing malware, theft of information, etc - this if verifiably false given recent history with apps like tiktok stealing clipboard content. The ability to change content of payment screens post-approval (as epic have just done) also means that cura…

> Apples curation isn't (as they suggest) preventing malware, theft of information, etc - this if verifiably false given recent history with apps like tiktok stealing clipboard There are many things that go wrong with the App Store, but you have to realise this is a ludicrous assertion. Pasting from clipboard is an entirely different class than rootkits, backdoors, trojans, and other malware that have a vanishingly s…

> Without review, publishing an app with a sandbox bypass, or simply abusing entitlements, becomes trivial.

I would _love_ a 3rd-party App Store that hosted jailbreak apps/apps that abuse private APIs/etc, so long as it was clear what I was getting.

Re: Rethinking the App Store

#112

Post by scarface74 »

cblconfederate wrote: post #106
scarface74 wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People have been accusing Apple devices of being a fashion symbol since the first iPod came out. In the US, Apple has 45% market share. How is anything with that type of market share a status symbol.

Remember blackberry? (why is it an accusation btw? if anything it's a good thing)

Remember the Apple //e released in the early 80s? Apple has been selling products more expensive than the competition for almost 40 years. People have been accusing Apple’s customers of being brainwashed for four decades.

Re: Rethinking the App Store

#113

Post by jasode »

dkersten wrote: post #65
supermatt wrote: post #13

I am of the opinion that the only fair option is to allow 3rd party stores with the same permissions as the official app store. Apples curation isn't (as they suggest) preventing malware, theft of information, etc - this if verifiably false given recent history with apps like tiktok stealing clipboard content. The ability to change content of payment screens post-approval (as epic have just done) also means that cura…

I agree with this. The only winners in the current situation are Apple. By opening it up to competitor app stores, yes competitors would benefit, but so would developers and so would their users. The App Store as it stands has completely stagnated to the point where it’s useless to me outside of actually downloading or buying an app. It’s been years since I’ve been able to discover new apps though it, now relying for…

>Microsoft got into trouble for bundling a web browser,

But to clarify, Microsoft ultimately won the case on appeal and had the initial ruling against them overturned.[1]

So in the final verdict, MS did not get into trouble for bundling the browser. In 2001, the DOJ settlement didn't force Microsoft to include Netscape Navigator or any other 3rd-party software on their standard desktop.

The developers in 2020 really don't want to hear this but Apple Inc actually has decades of case precedent to support the idea that Apple controls its own hardware with its own exclusive app store. To force Apple to include Epic's app store would require some new legal arguments that today's judge would be sympathetic to. Not saying it's impossible but it's not a slam dunk antitrust case as many on HN believe.

In other words, the status quo established in previous decided cases (including MS winning its antitrust IE case) actually supports the idea that Tesla is not forced to include Apple's Carplay in its cars' infotainment hardware, and Apple in turn is not forced to include a 3rd-party "Tesla app store" so the Tesla can bypass Apple's App Store review policies.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Microsoft_Cor...

Re: Rethinking the App Store

#114

Post by scotu »

nickflood wrote: post #70
willvarfar wrote: post #32

I'm divided. As a programmer, I'm as happy as a pig in mud in the low-level innards of my computers and operating systems, and like that I can get at them etc. That's why I have linux on my desktop. But 'open' systems don't work out well for 'normal' users. Remember the viruses and trojans and instability and all the rest of the Windows days, or Android? I want my parents and friends and everyone else to use an iphon…

Apple says that App Store is secure and stuff. But it would not become less secure if there are other stores. And everybody who wants security for themselves could choose to use the App Store exclusively. Everybody else, on the other hand, would not be forced to do the same for the benefit of a big corp. Sure, I've got relatives who would happily install crap on their devices given the ability, but iPhone's internal…

> everybody who wants security for themselves could choose to use the App Store exclusively

this is not what's going to happen in my opinion because 1. many people don't know they want security 2. many people will be tricked in installing from 3rd party stores

note that I don't have a solution to Apple monopoly, which I think is bad, but I also believe that the app store kept at bay a lot of dangerous software for less tech savvy people.

Re: Rethinking the App Store

#115

Post by ocdtrekkie »

pwinnski wrote: post #105
supermatt wrote: post #13

I am of the opinion that the only fair option is to allow 3rd party stores with the same permissions as the official app store. Apples curation isn't (as they suggest) preventing malware, theft of information, etc - this if verifiably false given recent history with apps like tiktok stealing clipboard content. The ability to change content of payment screens post-approval (as epic have just done) also means that cura…

I have definitely come around on this. I can see a case for making adding a third-party story cumbersome, and having Apple still control the "certificates," let's say, for each store, but yes, I agree, there need to be alternatives. It still seems awkward to say that Apple must allow for competitors, but they're a $2 trillion company now, and I think rules are just weird for companies of that size.

Presumably control of iOS means Apple would never lose the ability to distrust/remove a given store and apps installed with it. But Apple would need to be under clear regulation that it could not do so for a revenue-related reason.

Presumably a store openly promoting pirated apps would be a reason, and a store which has significant malware problems, could both be compelling reasons to permit Apple to do this, but I would go so far as to suggest they should be required to involve the legal system somehow in the process, rather than make a unilateral call.

Re: Rethinking the App Store

#116

Post by graeme »

MilaM wrote: post #54
lloeki wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Apples curation isn't (as they suggest) preventing malware, theft of information, etc - this if verifiably false given recent history with apps like tiktok stealing clipboard There are many things that go wrong with the App Store, but you have to realise this is a ludicrous assertion. Pasting from clipboard is an entirely different class than rootkits, backdoors, trojans, and other malware that have a vanishingly s…

Yet Epic was able to sneak in their own payment system through app review. The review process is also not magic.

Games have a special ability to download certain content. Epic may have done this? They clearly triggered the change remotely.

Re: Rethinking the App Store

#117

Post by sroussey »

PikachuEXE wrote: post #35
willvarfar wrote: post #32

I'm divided. As a programmer, I'm as happy as a pig in mud in the low-level innards of my computers and operating systems, and like that I can get at them etc. That's why I have linux on my desktop. But 'open' systems don't work out well for 'normal' users. Remember the viruses and trojans and instability and all the rest of the Windows days, or Android? I want my parents and friends and everyone else to use an iphon…

Look MacOS They do block "unidentified" apps by default but you still have the option to run it anyway (after a series of warnings maybe) But you can still run them And I think it can be a start

No, you must get Apple to approve/notarize now, regardless of Mac App Store.

Re: Rethinking the App Store

#119

Post by mehlmao »

czzr wrote: post #37

One argument that I think deserves extra scrutiny is the idea that extra app stores can be “optional”. The reality is that developers would have a strong incentive to go to the most permissive App Store, and users will follow. Users will also underestimate or ignore risks. You can dismiss that by saying it’s the user’s responsibility, but I think that’s just an abdication of good systems design. I’m not saying that A…

That hasn't happened on Android though, where it has been possible for years. Almost all apps are distributed through the Play Store. There's a huge amount of inertia in being the "default" store. Users need a really good reason to switch.

Re: Rethinking the App Store

#120

Post by wbronitsky »

ocdtrekkie wrote: post #115
pwinnski wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have definitely come around on this. I can see a case for making adding a third-party story cumbersome, and having Apple still control the "certificates," let's say, for each store, but yes, I agree, there need to be alternatives. It still seems awkward to say that Apple must allow for competitors, but they're a $2 trillion company now, and I think rules are just weird for companies of that size.

Presumably control of iOS means Apple would never lose the ability to distrust/remove a given store and apps installed with it. But Apple would need to be under clear regulation that it could not do so for a revenue-related reason. Presumably a store openly promoting pirated apps would be a reason, and a store which has significant malware problems, could both be compelling reasons to permit Apple to do this, but I w…

> it could not do so for a revenue-related reason

While this might sound good, this would be impossible to enforce in practice, as everything a company does is revenue-related. Any rules the app store or iOS have are directly related to revenue by definition.

For example, if Apple allowed boundless permissions and tons of buggy apps, their revenue would probably decrease. This issue is harder to regulate than it first seems.

Post reply on HN