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

241–250 of 350 posts

Re: Rethinking the App Store

#241

Post by romanoderoma »

jasode wrote: post #220
sbuk wrote: post #212

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is a huge difference here; there was never a legal issue with bundling IE. The problem was that MSFT threatened to withdraw OEM licensing for companies that bundled alternative browsers with Windows. Monopoly wasn't the issue. Abusing the monopoly (desktop OS) to leverage influence on another market segment (web browsers) is what go them into trouble.

>; there was never a legal issue with bundling IE. I suppose 20+ years has erased a collective memory of the conflicts with IE. Here is a relevant 1998 excerpt[1] from DOJ's own official website: >The Department today filed a motion seeking a preliminary injunction that would: >-- Require that if Microsoft insists on including its browser on Windows 98, it must also include Netscape's browser so that consumers will h…

> I suppose 20+ years has erased a collective memory of the conflicts with IE.

Not this again!

MS lost the (one of the many) case with the EU regarding Internet Explorer and that's were most of the confusion comes from: what happens in US is hardly relevant for the rest of the World

> In January 2009, the European Commission announced it would investigate the bundling of Internet Explorer with Windows operating systems from Microsoft, saying "Microsoft's tying of Internet Explorer to the Windows operating system harms competition between web browsers, undermines product innovation and ultimately reduces consumer choice."

> In response, Microsoft announced that it would not bundle Internet Explorer with Windows 7 E, the version of Windows 7 to be sold in Europe.

> On 16 December 2009, the European Union agreed to allow competing browsers, with Microsoft providing a "ballot box" screen letting users choose one of twelve popular products listed in random order. The twelve browsers were Avant, Chrome, Firefox, Flock, GreenBrowser, Internet Explorer, K-Meleon, Maxthon, Opera, Safari, Sleipnir, and Slim which are accessible via BrowserChoice.eu. The automatic nature of the BrowserChoice.eu feature was dropped in Windows 7 Service Pack 1 in February 2011 and remained absent for 14 months despite Microsoft reporting that it was still present, subsequently described by Microsoft as a "technical error". As a result, in March 2013 the European Commission fined Microsoft €561 million to deter companies from reneging on settlement promises."

Re: Rethinking the App Store

#242

Post by kevincox »

fjdjsmsm wrote: post #184
kevincox wrote: post #175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I don't see why we can't have things if they aren't useful to 5% of the population and don't harm the rest.

Also the "maybe not as high" comment was about security because you can make an argument that the human review is better. However there doesn't seem to be overwhelming evidence on either side comparing human review to mostly automated.

Re: Rethinking the App Store

#243

Post by romanoderoma »

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…

> Android has had alternative app stores for years, but there seem to be no winners there

The winners are the users that can easily side load apps without goingt through the Goggle store

Re: Rethinking the App Store

#244

Post by kgwxd »

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…

Why any stores at all? Just allow software to be installed like a PC. There are millions of PCs running just fine without a "store". No one is making any extra money, but that's OK, because they shouldn't be.

Re: Rethinking the App Store

#245

Post by jakelazaroff »

simonh wrote: post #225
the_other wrote: post #206

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Disability legislation doesn’t design solutions: it provides requirements which are inputs into your design process. The solutions are up to you.

I was replying to a post explicitly suggesting that the APIs and UI for accessibility should be standardised. In that context I think trying to refute, er, the suggestion actualy being made, is reasonable.

I’m not suggesting that — I thought you were speaking metaphorically. If a court mandates that Apple allow sideloaded apps or third-party app stores, it will obviously take the same form as accessibility requirements, not specific APIs or UI designs.

Re: Rethinking the App Store

#246

Post by romanoderoma »

graeme wrote: post #116
MilaM wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It's a very peculiar ability, it's called changing the content of a web page.

That's basically what Epic did.

Re: Rethinking the App Store

#247

Post by jakelazaroff »

auggierose wrote: post #232
the_other wrote: post #204

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As a disabled person, I’m forced to disagree. Most disability is social: activities are hard to perform not due to physical limitation (although this has some effect), but because social constructs and practices obstruct access.

It depends on the kind of software. Should games be required to be accessible? I don't think so. Should banking apps be required to be accessible? That probably depends on the size of the bank. Should software used for accessing government services be accessible? Of course. I don't think a law forcing all software to be accessible makes any kind of sense.

No one is asking for a law forcing all software to be accessible — just commercial and public (in the “government operated” sense) software. A bank’s size should not determine whether or not they have to support e.g. blind customers.

Re: Rethinking the App Store

#248

Post by romanoderoma »

auggierose wrote: post #232
the_other wrote: post #204

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As a disabled person, I’m forced to disagree. Most disability is social: activities are hard to perform not due to physical limitation (although this has some effect), but because social constructs and practices obstruct access.

It depends on the kind of software. Should games be required to be accessible? I don't think so. Should banking apps be required to be accessible? That probably depends on the size of the bank. Should software used for accessing government services be accessible? Of course. I don't think a law forcing all software to be accessible makes any kind of sense.

> I don't think a law forcing all software to be accessible makes any kind of sense.

Easy to say when you don't have disabilities

Now imagine that the only content you can consume are government's websites to pay taxes...

Re: Rethinking the App Store

#249

Post by TheNorthman »

benologist wrote: post #235
yungstevejobs wrote: post #229

Earlier quoted context omitted.

? Pretty sure Reddit and Twitter include sexual and violent content. The guideline you’re referring to states that an app shouldn’t solely be used to access pornographic content and services. Last time I checked none of the apps you and I mentioned are used exclusively for porn or violent content

The carve-out is for user-generated content but Netflix and Apple Music are not user-generated content and they do not even try to meet the requirements imposed on UGC. https://developer.apple.com/app-store/review/guidelines/ If they're not UGC then they're violating rule 1.1 - > Apps should not include content that is offensive, insensitive, upsetting, intended to disgust, in exceptionally poor taste, or just plain…

> intended to stimulate erotic rather than aesthetic or emotional feelings

I suppose the key here lies in the last part (emph.), which is why most reader-apps are allowed, including GoT.

Re: Rethinking the App Store

#250

Post by quesera »

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #214
quesera wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 as…

> But they really did. No they didn't. Choosing whether there is a walled store and choosing what gets into the store are two different things. And on top of that, you didn't even get the first choice independent of a hundred other variables like hardware, operating system, app availability, the network effect of peers with iMessage etc. To really drive this home, keep in mind that the same argument could be applied…

This is nothing like Comcast. There are very rarely two cable providers in a given area. Moving house is not equivalent to buying a different consumer gadget.

...

Union members get to elect union leadership. Phone customers get to elect phone manufacturers. Equivalency restored.

Post reply on HN