Rethinking the App Store • Hacker News Board

Re: Rethinking the App Store

#281

Post by [deleted] » Wed, Aug 26, 2020, 9:18 PM UTC

supermatt wrote: post #223

rarepostinlurkr wrote: post #207

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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. Thats FUD. The release notes even address it "This new behavior doesn’t change the long-established policy that our users and developers can run arbitrary code on their Macs, and is designed to simplify the execution policies on Apple silicon…

Arbitrary code, not binaries. You can run arbitrary code through a compiler (which gets signed automatically when it gets linked) and then run it, or you can run arbitrary code through an (already signed) interpreter. You CANNOT run an unsigned binary on silicon, but I totally understand your confusion given their statement. Edit: To clarify further, you cant run an ARM binary - x86 apps going through rosetta (curren…

[deleted]

Re: Rethinking the App Store

#282

Post by scarface74 » Wed, Aug 26, 2020, 9:18 PM UTC

contextfree wrote: post #274

scarface74 wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And that worked out really well for Vista and UAC. People have become blindly accustomed to just clicking ok.

It seems to have worked out at least semi-well? A lot less software on Windows requires admin permissions than did pre-Vista?

Having admin privileges doesn’t matter. Any software you install still has read and write permissions to all of your files, can encrypt your files (ransomware) can read your contacts (which hasn’t changed since the ILoveYou days in the early 2000s), etc.

Re: Rethinking the App Store

#283

Post by heisenzombie » Wed, Aug 26, 2020, 9:21 PM UTC

mthoms wrote: post #198

gwd wrote: post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

>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. I'm not sure that follows. Can you elaborate on why you would "lose that choice"?

A sufficiently powerful company or group could promote a third party app store by negotiating exclusive deals. Imagine a "EpicTwitBook" store being the only way to get Instagram, Snapchat, Twitter and Fortnite.

Previously those apps were forced to make concessions to be on the iOS store, and I could download "Instagram, the version that makes Apple happy" app.

But now, that version of the app is gone! I google "Why is my Instagram gone" and get an article that says I have to sign up to the "EpicTwitBook" store, and download the "Instagram, the version that makes Advertisers happy" app.

I would prefer the first version but I don't get a choice.

Re: Rethinking the App Store

#284

Post by wbronitsky » Wed, Aug 26, 2020, 9:21 PM UTC

ocdtrekkie wrote: post #131

wbronitsky wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> it could not do so for a revenue-related reason While this might sound good, this would be impossible to enforce in practice, as everything a company does is revenue-related. Any rules the app store or iOS have are directly related to revenue by definition. For example, if Apple allowed boundless permissions and tons of buggy apps, their revenue would probably decrease. This issue is harder to regulate than it firs…

Yes, technically, "everything a company does is revenue-related". However, you can realistically draw a line sonewhere between blocking illegal material (pirated/malware) and blocking apps that don't pay Apple their 30%. My comment was not intended to be the exact legalese that would be required for such a limitation, but you can probably gather roughly where I draw the line from it.

I want to point out that the crux of my argument, the very reason I posted, was that I could not "draw the line" from the previous argument. There is no actual rebuttal or new information in the reply, just a restatement of the previous point.

My point was that everything a company does is revenue related, and thus we cannot draw some imaginary line between things that are "more" or "less" revenue related. Restating that we can doesn't move us forward. I would be interested to hear how we can separate some revenue related reasons from others.

Re: Rethinking the App Store

#285

Post by judge2020 » Wed, Aug 26, 2020, 9:26 PM UTC

robterrell wrote: post #271

judge2020 wrote: post #257

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Unless Google has a sweetheart deal like Amazon.

YT likely doesn't have the 15% deal that is available for tv/movie streaming platforms, and they don't do annual subscriptions so they don't get 15% on second year subscriptions either.

Re: Rethinking the App Store

#286

Post by freehunter » Wed, Aug 26, 2020, 9:26 PM UTC

Sargos wrote: post #173

willvarfar wrote: post #32

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…

>Remember the viruses and trojans and instability and all the rest of the Windows days, or Android? The era you are referencing was two decades ago and those problems stemmed from development processes that didn't take security into consideration since it was mostly written in pre-internet days and worked well in that environment. Once Microsoft took security seriously things got better. Windows is -still- an open pl…

Pretty much every metric except how much malware is available on the store.

Re: Rethinking the App Store

#287

Post by anoncake » Wed, Aug 26, 2020, 9:30 PM UTC

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.

If we ban everything most people don't care about, not much will be left. Long tails are long.

Re: Rethinking the App Store

#288

Post by anoncake » Wed, Aug 26, 2020, 9:34 PM UTC

Tijdreiziger wrote: post #270

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.

The desktop is incredibly outdated, and it's painfully visible. Any desktop application you install isn't sandboxed at all and has full access to all your files and peripherals (including camera and microphone). The only way to describe this is 'insane'.

That is only a problem when you run untrusted software. Doing that is insane.

Re: Rethinking the App Store

#289

Post by clusterfish » Wed, Aug 26, 2020, 9:35 PM UTC

yungstevejobs wrote: post #251

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…

>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 st…

Really. As the end user I don't want to pay Apple a 30% sales tax on all my apps, content and service purchases on a device that I already paid a thousand dollars for.

90% of the reason people are even talking about alternative app stores is because this 30% is extortion made possible by excessive monopolistic power provided by tight vertical integration. If it was 10% no one would blink an eye and it would still be massively profitable for Apple. They're just too fucking greedy, and the amount of their apologists here is insane.

The collective hypocrisy of chanting for things like the right to repair while not even recognizing the right to install arbitrary apps on a computing device you paid for in full is just mind boggling.

Americans trust everyone with a fucking gun but oh no, being able to install a non-Apple-approved app or - gasp - use a non-apple payment method - will collapse the whole ecosystem. Haha.

Re: Rethinking the App Store

#290

Post by jonny_eh » Wed, Aug 26, 2020, 9:48 PM UTC

fartcannon wrote: post #187

nickflood wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Sweeney has principles, but one of them isn't supporting a platform with no chance of it paying off the investment needed to support it.