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

151–160 of 350 posts

Re: Rethinking the App Store

#151

Post by scarface74 »

cblconfederate wrote: post #127
scarface74 wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It's not brainwashing. Signaling is a big part of life. We like to pretend that humans are rational machines, but in reality people spend most of their time doing irrational things because they are rewardding, like, i don't know , arguing with strangers on the net for self-importance reasons. Apple's customers are easy to mock sometimes because they make their signaling slightly more visible by paying extra for it, b…

You realize that almost 50% of users in the US are Apple users?

I could say the same about open source advocates.

So do you think there is no reason besides signaling that people may want a phone that integrates with everything else they have? Or they get a faster phone for $399 than any Android phone at any price? They get 5 years of OS updates directly from Apple instead of hoping you get an update for two years? You have a video chat/messaging platform that has been consistent since 2010-2011 instead of having five released by the vendor?

Does Apple have some type of secret sauce that has allowed it to go its own way for four decades that no one else in the industry was able to successfully pull off? Or is it really just “better marketing”?

Re: Rethinking the App Store

#152

Post by ignoramous »

m3kw9 wrote: post #145
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.

> This would completely change Apple as a business.

Monopolistic behaviour hurt markets and overall economy more than what a flourishing, unrestricted "business" can capture.

Re: Rethinking the App Store

#153

Post by dllthomas »

mijamo wrote: post #142
sjwright wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

A "race to the bottom" that only impacts price means the customer wins. But the important point (which often goes unsaid) when people speak of a race to the bottom is that they are concerned that position in that race will be earned by sacrificing things that matter.

That may or may not be the case, but I expect it'll be more fruitful to address it.

Re: Rethinking the App Store

#154

Post by fjdjsmsm »

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…

The problem with this argument is the existence of Android. The app ecosystem on Android is not appreciably better than iOS. Opening iOS to third party app store will likely just increase copyright infringement, leading to fewer paid apps.

Re: Rethinking the App Store

#155

Post by fjdjsmsm »

emsy wrote: post #110
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…

The stagnation is also due to the fact that no developer would take a lot of cash up front to make a innovative app at the risk of Apple banning it from the store.

Are there many more innovative apps on Android?

Re: Rethinking the App Store

#156

Post by bogwog »

m3kw9 wrote: post #145
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.

> This would completely change Apple as a business.

So? Imagine if we handicapped the march of progress so that Blockbuster wouldn't have to go out of business. If Apple can't innovate, then let them die.

(but chances are good that they'll turn out just fine)

Re: Rethinking the App Store

#157

Post by yyyk »

There's a very simple law: You can't use a strong position in one market to enhance your position in another market. Simply put, the entire tying up of payments to Apple is classic anti-competitive behaviour, and there's little chance the courts won't put an end to it. Same will happen with Apple using private APIs for its store owned apps. That said, it's very unlikely the courts will interfere with the 30% fee. There are no legal grounds for demanding a smaller fee.

Re: Rethinking the App Store

#158

Post by jakelazaroff »

simonh wrote: post #128
ardy42 wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The problem with this is that it would be putting an obligation on Apple to design and implement APIs it doesn't want to create or support, and implement features it disagrees with. That's not a problem, it's just life. Pretty much every person and organization has obligations they need to comply with that they may disagree with. For instance, COPPA means Apple (and other internet companies) already need to impleme…

So now the US government and the EU will be making legislation that specifies phone APIs and designs user interfaces. Great! Not going to happen. Apple will simple close up the App Store into a private premium feature delivery system. Meanwhile the entire rest of the industry will be stuck with a new version of WAP. Thanks guys.

> So now the US government and the EU will be making legislation that specifies phone APIs and designs user interfaces. Great!

This, but unironically.

It's not hard to think of an example where "legislation that specifies APIs and designs user interfaces" is unambiguously good — say, accessibility requirements for commercial software.

Re: Rethinking the App Store

#159

Post by frenchyatwork »

TheOtherHobbes wrote: post #148
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 Sto…

Another big problem with the App Store is that there are so many requirements (can't be too much like something Apple made, can't be too much like a web app) and these rules are inconsistently and arbitrarily applied.

Re: Rethinking the App Store

#160

Post by auggierose »

jakelazaroff wrote: post #158
simonh wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So now the US government and the EU will be making legislation that specifies phone APIs and designs user interfaces. Great! Not going to happen. Apple will simple close up the App Store into a private premium feature delivery system. Meanwhile the entire rest of the industry will be stuck with a new version of WAP. Thanks guys.

> So now the US government and the EU will be making legislation that specifies phone APIs and designs user interfaces. Great! This, but unironically. It's not hard to think of an example where "legislation that specifies APIs and designs user interfaces" is unambiguously good — say, accessibility requirements for commercial software.

I think that's pretty bad. A development shop shouldn't be forced to follow all sorts of accessibility requirements.
Post reply on HN