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

161–170 of 350 posts

Re: Rethinking the App Store

#161

Post by bogwog »

yyyk wrote: post #149
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.

Which official app store won on Windows? AFAIK, Steam is the number one store for games, and people buy their apps from vendors directly (example: Adobe, Autodesk, even Microsoft). The Windows app store was dead on arrival.

And linux package managers aren't app stores. They're mostly meant for system libraries and core applications, although some devs do distribute their (free) apps through it. In any case, Linux is a weird one to include in this comparison, and I'm pretty sure Steam is still the number one store for getting games on Linux too.

But whatever, another thing: a big part of the reason that the official app store won on Android is because of the lengths Google goes to to scare users from installing apps from "unknown sources", hiding the option to do so, displaying scary popups, etc. That's one of the reasons Epic is suing Google for.

Re: Rethinking the App Store

#162

Post by quesera »

realityking wrote: post #144
bluesign wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> Apple never asked for my input on App Store rules.

But they really did.

They asked "Walled garden, restrictive app publishing, no BS", or "Sideload to your heart's content", you choose!

And Apple customers said "Walled garden, please and thank you!"

This is a completely respectable choice -- but of course it is not everyone's choice!

I was unintentionally (and unexpectedly) a unionized employee once. They didn't ask me to ratify their agenda, but they did require me to pay dues!

Re: Rethinking the App Store

#163

Post by gwd »

kqvamxurcagg wrote: post #51
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…

Ultimately giving users choice is the best way forward. Apple shouldn't be allowed to block competing app stores (or sideloading) on their platform, in my view that's monopolistic. Imagine if Microsoft had restricted the ability to install and use third party software on Windows, it would of slowed digital transformation dramatically.

> Ultimately giving users choice is the best way forward.

OK, but right now as a user I have a choice: I can choose an ecosystem supported in part by a 30% tax on apps, or I can choose an ecosystem supported mainly by advertising. If Apple is forced to allow other stores, I lose that choice.

Furthermore, a lot of the things Apple forces on apps really are for my benefit: Take the way they banned Facebook for working around their prohibition on running in the background. They can say, "If you want to access this market, you will follow these rules." If Apple is forced to allow other app stores, then not only Epic and Spotify can say, "We only install on this other store that allows us to sell subscriptions without the 30% tax", then Facebook and others will also be able to say, "We only install on this other store that lets us spy on you."

One again: At the moment, as a consumer, I can choose to say, "I prefer Apple to negotiate on my behalf" or, "I'll go with Android, where I can install third-party stores". If Apple is forced to open up, I won't have that choice any more.

Re: Rethinking the App Store

#164

Post by amelius »

cblconfederate wrote: post #118
amelius wrote: post #76

Why doesn't Apple bump into the same problem with the App store as Microsoft did with IE and the browser ballot screen, imposed on them by the EU?

There are other browsers - There is no other ios store

Anyone could easily build one, and start complaining that Apple doesn't provide access.

Re: Rethinking the App Store

#165

Post by benologist »

frenchyatwork wrote: post #159
TheOtherHobbes wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I like how apps cannot include sexual, violent or offensive content but Apple Music and Netflix can.

Re: Rethinking the App Store

#166

Post by panzagl »

The most important changes Apple needs to make would not cost them a single line of code- they just get rid of their policy to require consistent pricing across all platforms, and allow promotion/linking of external (i.e. not on iOS) payment sources.

If Spotify could charge +30% for a subscription purchased through the App store, and include a link to their main sign up page where subscriptions are regular price, everyone is happy. No security is changed and developers pass along the price of being in the App store to only those consumers who wish it. Only loser is Apple, who does not get to use their gatekeeper status on iOS to enforce monopoly-style pricing controls across all platforms.

Re: Rethinking the App Store

#167

Post by MR4D »

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…

> ...Apple Inc actually has decades of case precedent to support the idea that Apple controls its own hardware with its own exclusive app store...

This was true for AT&T at one time as well.

I agree with your point, but things change when you get too big. Apple might be at that point, but I don't really know, and IANAL.

Re: Rethinking the App Store

#168

Post by simonh »

ardy42 wrote: post #137
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! They already do. For instance Microsoft was forced to create BrowserChoice.eu because of an antitrust case. GDPR puts requirements on user interfaces for personal data collection. I'm not aware of similar US examples (except maybe the aforementioned COPPA), but I know US law specifies form de…

Those are incredibly minimal requirements, basically equivalent to labelling restrictions on food. They're nothing like specifying a detailed spec for application delivery, permissioning, resource access, background update orchestration, UI design for installers and update management etc, etc. And yes this would have to be mandated, otherwise it would leave gaps for vendor implementation abuse. Remember Apple doesn't want to do this at all.

On your last point, not if you take away the two primary pillars of it's profitability - exclusive payments processing and store exclusivity. Revenues would collapse, which after all is the point of doing all of this, and they'd lose control of the platform. Why not simply close open access to the store and explicitly license every app. They could just do a deal with a dozen software vendors to develop the couple of hundred core apps and games they need, and to do bespoke development for other clients. No public signups as iOS developers.

Re: Rethinking the App Store

#169

Post by gwd »

realityking wrote: post #144
bluesign wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

But that's part of what you're buying when you buy Apple. It would be one thing if Apple controlled 86% of the mobile phone market, and you as a consumer (or an app developer) didn't have much choice; but actually Apple only controls 14% of the smartphone market[1]. Both consumers and developers have lots of other options.

[1] https://www.counterpointresearch.com/global-smartphone-share...

Re: Rethinking the App Store

#170

Post by supermatt »

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…

There is no reason for "root access". An API call to install a packaged app in a sandbox, and update apps that are installed is all that you would require.

Apps would be consistently installed to a sandbox identified by their bundle identifier (which is typically domain-based).

This is effectively what already happens on iOS.

App certification/verification would be done using exactly the same certs we use for domains (possibly co-signed by the store as part of their curation/verification/drm process) to ensure the store can only install what the developer provides, and what the store curators permit to be distributed through their store.

I don't think changing 30% to some other arbitrary figure solves anything. For me the biggest problem is Apple deciding what/whose apps ios (and macos, given the recent code signing requirements coming with mac silicon...) users are permitted to use.

Post reply on HN