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

181–190 of 350 posts

Re: Rethinking the App Store

#181

Post by kevincox »

m3kw9 wrote: post #150
rleigh wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I think the point they are trying to make is that you are also at risk if Apple decides to pick a war with you.

The rules are not some crystal clear logical function that you can be sure that you stay inside of. They are vague, selectively enforced and can change any any time. So at the end of the day if Apple decides that they don't like you they pick a vague rule, claim that you violate it and poof! you lost a war you didn't know that you were fighting.

Re: Rethinking the App Store

#182

Post by LamaOfRuin »

nemothekid wrote: post #172
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 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. It's hard for me to reconcile this, and I keep seeing that 3rd party app stores would be better for users, but it all seems very handwavy. You would think this would be an easy point to prove as Android has had alternative app stores for yea…

3rd party stores allowed Amazon to bootstrap the only reasonable android tablet ecosystem and become the second largest tablet maker in the world after Apple.

F-droid maintains a modest but robust marketplace of open source software, some of which include things that are not allowed in either Apple or Google app stores.

3rd party stores also allow numerous country-focused stores which arguably serve their home markets better than Google or Apple are willing to.

Re: Rethinking the App Store

#183

Post by mmis1000 »

TheJoeMan wrote: post #109
joking wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm on the same opinion, once the device is mine I should be able to install whatever I want. What would happen if I couldn't install the software I want on a desktop device? I really don't get how apple has survived so long with such a tight leash on IOS.

Also, what happened to PWA’s? That would be a great way to open up the ecosystem

Apple decides to fxxk them up. It don't even has notification that chrome/firefox on android implemented years ago. Not to mention damn much annoying safari bugs.

Re: Rethinking the App Store

#184

Post by fjdjsmsm »

kevincox wrote: post #175
fjdjsmsm wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I think it is. I have the best of both worlds. Most of the time I download apps from a store that is roughly as safe as the Apple store. (Maybe not quite as high, but I don't think that this changes the argument). However if there is some software that Google doesn't like I can install it myself. Or I can run a patch that some developer posted on GitHub and test it before it has been merged and published. It shows th…

95% of the public don’t even know what GitHub is. The vast majority of people aren’t going to run patches a developer posted there.

Anyway, the argument was that the Apple app store was stifling app development. In your reply you yourself say the apps on the Google store are “Maybe not quite as high” quality.

Re: Rethinking the App Store

#185

Post by georgeecollins »

panzagl wrote: post #166

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, eve…

That is exactly what Epic was doing. They were allowing people to make purchases at a 20% discount through a web app of digital content that could appear in iPhone App. And Apple took their app down.

It's not the pricing that Apple opposed, its that you could buy it through another method. How can you have the pricing changes you propose if Apple forbids selling interactive content for their platform through any other channel?

The point is that Apple has too much power over the device, in the way that Microsoft has at times had too much power over the desktop. If Apple was forced to let other people offer app stores on Apple devices, everything they do in the app store would be fine. I don't have a problem with Steam or Microsoft App store, because they can co-exist with other app stores. If Apple is the only one you trust, you can only use that one. That is what makes sense to me.

Re: Rethinking the App Store

#186

Post by kitsunesoba »

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.

Exactly, as a user I'm not going to be happy if I have to resort to using an unscrupulous third party App Store with fewer privacy restrictions in order to get the app I need.

There's also the possibility of mobile equivalents to the Adobe CC installer/manager that act as their own "App Store" and aren't subject to any rules at all, which is even worse. After seeing what the likes of Adobe does on desktop PCs, I do not want to see what they do when granted effectively unfettered access to my phone.

Re: Rethinking the App Store

#187

Post by fartcannon »

nickflood wrote: post #73
throwaway13337 wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Epic isn't the hero we need but the hero we deserve. I can certainly imagine a lot of companies are tight-lipped about it. My livelihood depends on an app store and so I'm super cautious about what I say publicly about the company that controls it. This sort of chilling effect is scary and should rightly be contested. Epic is criticized for being a huge company themselves and using that as leverage in their legal bat…

Me too. I think, Epic is uniquely positioned also because it is privately held. As such, its actions are more representative of what Tim Sweeney thinks is right instead of the investor mob. And to me as a developer Tim Sweeney seems like a pretty good guy similar to Carmack in many ways.

Tim Sweeney's position on Linux is pretty indicative of his character. He'll bitch and moan about Microsoft and Apple locking things down, but refuses to support a true open platform. He's in this for money, pure and simple.

Carmack, by comparison, is a saint.

Re: Rethinking the App Store

#188

Post by yyyk »

bogwog wrote: post #161
yyyk wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

In Windows the old method was installing exe files, and it remains the most popular - but otherwise the only app store worth mentioning is the MS one (on Steam in a moment). In Linux, package managers can and do include other apps (not all of course), and just about everything that can be installed from them gets priority from users - and alternative repos get the scraps.

The option isn't hidden on android at all, it's dead simple. There's a warning dialog, but I can live with that.

* Steam is a very specialized case: Not quite an app store [Apple credits itself with inventing the App Store, despite Steam existing since 2003, so Apple agrees with me on this], but they all but created the Linux game market, and got in before the Windows Store was created. Yea, if you create the market or get in in advance or on stuff the official store doesn't include, you can survive, but the general rule is that the official App Store wins.

People are upset with Google, but it's not so much about the Play Store. And Apple doesn't need to be as lax as Google - If they had let go of the anti-competitive behaviour and had a slightly less explotitive fee structure people could live with the App Store being only store allowed. It's Apple being very greedy that led to the calls to, well, reduce Apple's permissions (I couldn't resist).

Re: Rethinking the App Store

#189

Post by ArkVark »

panzagl wrote: post #166

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, eve…

This just penalises the little guy who can't setup alternative infrastructure.

Digital stores above a certain size (eg. above $1b in annual global sales) simply need to be regulated by Governments, with a maximum % commission for developers registered in that country. 15% seems reasonable.

Re: Rethinking the App Store

#190

Post by saagarjha »

panzagl wrote: post #166

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, eve…

This doesn't solve the problem of "what if Apple says you shouldn't be on the App Store at all".
Post reply on HN