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

141–150 of 350 posts

Re: Rethinking the App Store

#141

Post by realityking »

dannyr wrote: post #56
bluesign wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Having 3rd party stores will be net negative for me as a user. Currently I have trust to Apple, if I am or my kid charged wrong or tricked into some subscription etc, I have proof with experience that Apple will fix it. Now let’s say if we have many stores, some stores will try to be smart, will make exclusive deals, force people to install their stores to maybe play a one popular game. As a user I will end up with 1…

> Having 3rd party stores will be net negative for me as a user. Having 3rd party stores will not prevent you for using the Apple App Store exclusively. > As a user I will end up with 10 stores on my phone, each has my billing information, Imagine if there is only 1 store, e.g. Walmart? Only Walmart has your billing information and it's the only store where you can buy things. > Now let’s say if we have many stores T…

> Having 3rd party stores will not prevent you for using the Apple App Store exclusively.

This is an interesting question. Let's say Apple will be forced to allow the Epic Games Store on iOS. Would Epic be forced to offer Fornite on the App Store in addition to the Epic Games Store? If not, bluesign's kid might very well force him to use another store.

Re: Rethinking the App Store

#142

Post by mijamo »

sjwright wrote: post #123
dannyr wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Having 3rd party stores will be net negative for me as a user. Having 3rd party stores will not prevent you for using the Apple App Store exclusively. > As a user I will end up with 10 stores on my phone, each has my billing information, Imagine if there is only 1 store, e.g. Walmart? Only Walmart has your billing information and it's the only store where you can buy things. > Now let’s say if we have many stores T…

> Having 3rd party stores will not prevent you for using the Apple App Store exclusively. It will if enough developers flee to whichever store has the cheapest rate and the fewest restrictions. It’s a race to the bottom and the consumer ultimately loses.

That is the whole purpose of a free economy. It's a race to the bottom only as long as the customer needs are satisfied with the product, which is exactly what's good for society. Sure you might have several stores, so what? It's like saying there should only be one car dealership because dealerships take too much space and it's not convenient to go in many places to check cars.

Re: Rethinking the App Store

#143

Post by dane-pgp »

jasode wrote: post #113
dkersten wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

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

To further clarify, the EU antitrust authorities decided not to let off Microsoft with a slap on the wrist for their bundling practices:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BrowserChoice.eu

Re: Rethinking the App Store

#144

Post by realityking »

bluesign wrote: post #90
kqvamxurcagg wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

At a micro level I can understand this point, but the proper functioning of markets requires competition. You likely wouldn't advocate one supermarket, one car company or one hardware manufacturer. Even if you would prefer to use Apple's Store it's wrong to deny others (both producers and consumers) free choice.

I am looking at with a different perspective: I am thinking Apple is like a union for their users. And they are regulating developers and they have huge negotiating power because they are gateway to user’s phone. I don’t see them as market participant, I more likely see them as market regulator.

> I am thinking Apple is like a union for their users.

While I'm decidedly not Epic's side on this I think this is a misleading and dangerous argument. In a union, members get to vote to change the rules to benefit the membership. Apple never asked for my input on App Store rules.

Re: Rethinking the App Store

#145

Post by m3kw9 »

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…

This opinion seem to ignore that it essentially opens up the entire hardware platform for people to use. This would completely change Apple as a business.

Re: Rethinking the App Store

#146

Post by baddox »

mmebane wrote: post #111
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…

> 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.

I suspect a large portion of Apple’s users value the fact that they can’t break their phone by accidentally installing the wrong app or clicking the wrong button. To them it might not be clear what they’re getting from this no-rules App Store.

Re: Rethinking the App Store

#147

Post by bogwog »

This is a well-written and researched article, but I have to disagree with some stuff. The suggested alternative payment processing policies make no sense for Apple; they would incentivize people to not make iPhone-exclusive experiences. That's something the walled-garden aficionados at Apple would never go for. And a court order to implement a change like that (or any change) would be a bad idea. As for the reduced 10% rate, why 10%? In a truly competitive market, we might see figures lower than that.

I think that trying to come up with perfect changes for Apple's practices is a waste of time. Apple shouldn't be forced to make changes to their store, nor should we bother trying to convince them to do it themselves. Let them do whatever they want, but allow third-party stores. Competitive forces will fix everything in the long-term.

What I'm not sure of is how that would work in practice. Will Apple be forced to release (and maintain) their SDKs and dev tools for free? Will they be forced to make changes to the operating system to allow side-loading? If they are, how long would that take? and wouldn't it be catastrophic from a security point of view, since iOS has never had to worry about the security issues of side-loading.

Re: Rethinking the App Store

#148

Post by TheOtherHobbes »

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 don't see how 3rd party stores can possibly work in a system that relies on rigid permissions.

HN fetishises root access as if it's some kind of magic panacea, but in reality most users don't care about root access at all - they want apps that work, they have zero interest in tinkering with software for its own sake, and root access will not make apps more reliable or more secure.

The main problems with the App Store are the cost (30% is egregious), the distance between Apple's claims about privacy and simple exploits (see also Zoom and TikTok), the fact that search is user hostile, and the fact that Apple forces its payment system on app developers for no good reason.

Fix all of those and cut the tax to 10% and Apple can continue to have its semi-monopoly.

Re: Rethinking the App Store

#149

Post by yyyk »

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…

The reality is that your scenario never happened. Not on Android, not on Windows, not on Linux distributions... The 'official' App Store always wins, unless its demands are so onerous a small minority uses a small store in addition to it.

Re: Rethinking the App Store

#150

Post by m3kw9 »

rleigh wrote: post #89
nickflood wrote: post #28

Note how many sources wanted to stay anonymous "for fear of upsetting Apple". Apple knows they can end businesses with the click of a finger. That's what they tried to do by ending the dev license for Unreal Engine. And Apple wants everybody to know that they know. I'm almost certain that the Unreal Dev license revocation is a result of a similar email chain as what happened to Kindle - https://www.macrumors.com/2020…

This "random capriciousness" is perhaps the primary concern which keeps me from developing for Apple systems. If I invest my own time and capital into developing a product, which can only be sold through a single outlet, and which could be arbitrarily banned at any point in time, that's simply too much risk to bear. Apple, as the arbiter of what is sold through their store, have far too much power. Why would I put fu…

That risk is low comparing to the reward on such large user base. Most business can thrive if they develop an actual app with good value. You can always pick a war with Apple, but that’s a risk you choose to take after you make it big.
Post reply on HN