Live data from Hacker News

Rethinking the App Store

stratechery.com

251–260 of 350 posts

Re: Rethinking the App Store

#251

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…

>By opening the platform to other app stores, developers will benefit due to choice and competition on fees and descoverability, end users will benefit from encouraged innovation, Apple will be forced to compete on convenience or features instead of letting it stagnate while they collect buckets of cash... it would be good for consumers and the ecosystem.

I think the only group that will benefit from 3rd party app stores on iOS is developers. I don’t see end users benefiting at all. The simplicity and convenience in downloading and discovering apps is gone. You said you have trouble discovering apps now with a unified store, so I’m not sure how discovering apps on multiple different app stores will be any easier. Frankly I’m sure it will become much more difficult and complicated for end users. Also I’m not sure how much more convenient Apple can make the App Store for iOS users. Payment information isn’t being shared between multiple parties. Switching payment info doesn’t involve going through each service. Receipts are automatically sent to emails. Automatic app updates. No confusion when it comes to where to download an app.

The App Store consistently brings in more money than the play store each year, despite Apple and iOS having a much smaller market share than Google and Android. I attribute this to Apples guidelines and developer tools, but also because of user confidence in the App Store. More people are willing to scan their face or use Touch ID because how simple and convenient IAP is. That and users are aware their payment info isn’t being sent around to multiple parties. I believe everyone arguing for 3rd party app stores on iOS aren’t thinking as the end user. at all. You said that allowing 3rd party stores will benefit end users with innovation, but innovate what exactly ? How much more innovation does the process of finding and downloading apps need?

>Microsoft got into trouble for bundling a web browser, where they didn’t directly make money, Apple should get into trouble for the App Store, where they do directly make money due to their artificial lack of competition.

Why should they get in trouble? Let’s not forget that Microsoft only developed one part of the final product(the OS). In Apples case they created every part of the product. The hardware , the software and the market on the software. I think they’re well in their rights to decide what and how 3rd party software gets on their OS..

Re: Rethinking the App Store

#252

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The consistent pricing requirement was removed years ago. This is an article from 2011 about it: https://appleinsider.com/articles/11/06/09/apple_backs_down_...

For reference, YT Premium is $16 on iOS[0] but $12 directly[1]. 0: https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/pw/ACtC-3dznQemACWzb2tbYfd... 1: https://youtube.com/premium

The developer chooses if the price should be different or not. In that case, Youtube decided that the users should pay the 30 percent Apple tax.

Re: Rethinking the App Store

#253

I'm divided. As a programmer, I'm as happy as a pig in mud in the low-level innards of my computers and operating systems, and like that I can get at them etc. That's why I have linux on my desktop. But 'open' systems don't work out well for 'normal' users. Remember the viruses and trojans and instability and all the rest of the Windows days, or Android? I want my parents and friends and everyone else to use an iphon…

Apple says that App Store is secure and stuff. But it would not become less secure if there are other stores. And everybody who wants security for themselves could choose to use the App Store exclusively. Everybody else, on the other hand, would not be forced to do the same for the benefit of a big corp. Sure, I've got relatives who would happily install crap on their devices given the ability, but iPhone's internal…

App Store will not be less secure if they allow third party app stores, but the platform will.

How long do you think that it will take for scam apps in poorly moderated app stores to appear, which the users are tricked to install for "free v-bucks" or "free $10 store credit"?

Re: Rethinking the App Store

#254
Having read the whole thread, what amazes me is how most people here seem to be thinking about iOS products as general purpose computing products, when in reality the iPhone has been a console-like ecosystem from the start.

I'm personally very happy it works like an Xbox or Switch rather than Android, and that I don't have to figure out which app store a given app came from, deal with different parties if I need to resolve billing issues, etc.

Any comments focusing on the technical issues are missing the point. Of course it can be done. The benefit of the iOS ecosystem is knowing that it won't be done.

Re: Rethinking the App Store

#255
post #244

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.

The BredoLab botnet was 30M PCs strong.

Re: Rethinking the App Store

#256
post #71
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 don't think this would be trivial either. Given that iOS security has historically been rather good, I guess an attacker would need a reasonably new exploit or even zero day. Assuming an attacker has access to something like that, I'm 99.8% certain he'd be able to sneak past the review process as well. As For…

Sometimes Apple is aware of vulnerabilities before they are patched, and it only takes getting caught once for the app, company, and individual developer to be banned from the App Store.

Also, I think you may overestimate most attackers. Most of them are so lazy.

Re: Rethinking the App Store

#257

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For reference, YT Premium is $16 on iOS[0] but $12 directly[1]. 0: https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/pw/ACtC-3dznQemACWzb2tbYfd... 1: https://youtube.com/premium

The developer chooses if the price should be different or not. In that case, Youtube decided that the users should pay the 30 percent Apple tax.

Yes - and YT is still losing money on that transaction. $16 will become $11.20 after apple takes their cut.

Re: Rethinking the App Store

#258
post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

I thought about this point as well, but I think the consideration that you’ll miss out a huge customer base with a lot of money (Apple customers) should be taken into account. I’m really talking about risky projects that need a lot of funding up front, where the risk of losing Apple’s customer base means ruin and lack of funding.

Re: Rethinking the App Store

#259

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

> This is nothing like Comcast. There are very rarely two cable providers in a given area.

That's why the analogy fits -- if you have an iPhone you're in Apple's service area. You can't get your apps from Google Play unless you move to their platform.

But having both a cable provider and a telco in the same area is actually very common. And even if there is a strong competitor (singular), e.g. FiOS, it's still hugely problematic. You choose Comcast and you only get Comcast video service, you choose FiOS and only get FiOS video service, no option for Netflix or YouTube because there are still only two of them and neither of them want you to use that over theirs.

The forces of competition don't actually work if they both know they can get away with it as long as the other one does and the market is concentrated enough with sufficient barriers to entry that they don't have to worry about newcomers. Which is true of both ISPs and phone platforms.

> Moving house is not equivalent to buying a different consumer gadget.

Buying a new phone (~$1000) compared to buying an app (~$1). Then re-buy all your existing apps, because new platform. Learn the other OS, training cost. Any apps that don't exist there, like iMessage? Problematic. Move all your data from iCloud to Google.

It's very much like moving house.

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

Equivalency would be the customers electing Apple's board, which they don't. Equivalency would be an actual co-op store which you do get to elect the leadership of. The thing you're claiming is that it would be just as good to have an unaccountable union because you could always go work for another company (which had its own unaccountable union).

And we could do even better -- because it's not like unions are a panacea -- and have a co-op store which isn't tied to specific hardware or a platform, which you can choose to opt out of without simultaneously opting out of anything else. Which is what you would be able to have in a competitive market.

Re: Rethinking the App Store

#260

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The developer chooses if the price should be different or not. In that case, Youtube decided that the users should pay the 30 percent Apple tax.

Yes - and YT is still losing money on that transaction. $16 will become $11.20 after apple takes their cut.

After payment processor fees on other platforms, I assume the resulting profit should be really close.
Post reply on HN