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

341–350 of 350 posts

Re: Rethinking the App Store

#341

Post by yazaddaruvala »

sreekotay wrote: post #314
yazaddaruvala wrote: post #278

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Each "app store" would have it's own ability to set those policies for apps it carries - but (crucially) users would have the OPTION. > For users that don't care - stick with Apple. As an Apple user, to me this is the opposite of having "options". As an individual, I cannot fight any remotely large company let alone FB or Google. If they hold my messaging or email hostage, I would be forced to use their secondary i…

Fair point on FB and Google. Troubling rumblings in that direction... But I dont follow... install only their app from that store. Same sandbox, etc applies. Let them require same security. As to revenue... that might have to so with customer set? If it were only Apple, a lot less people would own smartphones....

> install only their app from that store. Same sandbox, etc applies. Let them require same security.

If FB has access to execute code on my phone, without any guardrails, what stops them from requiring location or microphone services be on at all times?

As an informed user I can push back, even boycott, until my friend hosts an event and I need to see the invite.

What I really want is a collective bargaining power agency (i.e. kinda like a customers' union) that imposes rules that are in my best interest onto service providers. Frankly, this need exists because the government isn't doing a good enough job of it. I am happy to pay extra to this agency for this increased bargaining power.

It just so happens that Apple has positioned itself in my life as that collective bargaining power agency. Does it make life harder for service providers? Yes. If I was a service provider would I fight this friction? Yes. However, unlike anti-competitive monopoly behavior that hurts customers, the collective bargaining power is used in the benefit of the customer (i.e. me).

Re: Rethinking the App Store

#342

Post by AnthonyMouse »

quesera wrote: post #339
AnthonyMouse wrote: post #336

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I do not agree that Apple has an obligation to develop this functionality for me. The issue isn't they should have to do it for you, it's that they've taken purposeful action to prevent anyone else from doing it. > I think iOS is a better consumer product because it has never allowed ad hoc app installs. But this doesn't require the store to be glued to the device. You could get the same experience by using only Ap…

> The issue isn't they should have to do it for you, it's that they've taken purposeful action to prevent anyone else from doing it. The crux of our disagreement may lie here. Apple did not take active steps to prevent other app stores from running on iOS. They spent many years of active effort to prevent any app from escaping the runtime sandbox. As a side effect, I cannot load arbitrary phone applications, keyboard…

> Demanding that Apple undo (or make exceptions in) this design, which provides runtime security across the OS, would be coerced development.

At this point you're arguing that prohibiting them from doing something is coercing them to do something merely because they've already done it.

Consider the case where they have an absolute monopoly on phones. There are only iPhones, nothing else. Would you still object to a requirement to allow other app stores because it's "coercing development"?

What if they used the app store monopoly to monopolize the market for online payment processing, and from there the entire retail market? Can you imagine how that would harm the customer?

> Re: switching costs: In what consumer relationship does the buyer not assume some risk in their decision?

This is actually true for the large majority of consumer products. If you go to the grocery store and buy a carton of eggs, you don't have to buy the same company's sugar or flour or chocolate chips, and when you've bought those things and have them in your kitchen, you don't have to throw them out if you switch to another brand of eggs.

Moreover, the issue with switching costs isn't that they exist -- for many complex products, they will -- it's that they create a barrier which thwarts the competitive pressure on the company that would otherwise prevent it from abusing its market position, so then you need something else to do that, e.g. antitrust. Having a monopoly isn't, in itself, illegal; abusing it is.

Re: Rethinking the App Store

#343

Post by nvrspyx »

gwd wrote: post #300
nvrspyx wrote: post #203

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think we're mostly contextualizing this to the US, where Apple has over 50% (~58% last I checked) of the market, which is where most competition of their own apps exist. Last I checked, iOS had ~24% of global market share. Regardless, 14% of 3.5 billion is still so ridiculously large that each phone OS should be considered their own market, not competitors within the same market. You wouldn't consider a microwave a…

> Last I checked, iOS had ~24% of global market share. The link in my reference showed Apple at 14% of the global smartphone market for many years. Do you have a reference you think is more reliable? Similarly, they have Apple in the US at between 40-49% the last 6 quarters: https://www.counterpointresearch.com/us-market-smartphone-sh... While that's not 14%, it's certainly not a monopoly. Consumers don't have to wor…

I'm pretty late to this, but your statistics are smartphones shipped, which isn't really representative because people with iPhones tend to use their particular model for longer than Android users, which go through phones quicker for one reason or another. I was going off of operating system market share, which is primarily determined by web browser user agents. It is more representative of active phone users and doesn't need to rely on who's buying a new phone or who's sticking with their older one.

Again, the smartphone manufacturing market isn't in question, it's the software markets that are tied to those smartphones.

Re: Rethinking the App Store

#344

Post by marcus_holmes »

iso1210 wrote: post #83
marcus_holmes wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because you're not their target market. Their target market don't want to know about the technical details. They're not nerds like us.

People on this site are not in general nerds. The explosion in developers around the late 00s meant that the average coder is no longer a typical 'news for nerds stuff that matters' person.

Maybe in the Bay. But in the rest of the world, the average suit still considers developers to be nerds, only good for pushing the nerd-buttons.

Re: Rethinking the App Store

#345

Post by joking »

marcus_holmes wrote: post #38
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.

Because you're not their target market. Their target market don't want to know about the technical details. They're not nerds like us.

I'm actually their target market, I use an iphone as my main phone because two reasons, first they have a great hardware, and second, they support their devices much longer than any other manufacturer. An iphone 7 is 4 years from their release still a very capable phone and receives security updates and new os versions, there is no other manufactured that does that. You could say that they finance that with the app store, but their devices are actually quite priced and what the app store gives to apple is way more money that what they need.

You can however not invest very much on the apple ecosystem and subscribe to most services outside the app store mode, which is what I do myself, but I'm a minority.

Re: Rethinking the App Store

#346

Post by Mindwipe »

bluesign wrote: post #90
kqvamxurcagg wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

At a micro level I can understand this point, but the proper functioning of markets requires competition. You likely wouldn't advocate one supermarket, one car company or one hardware manufacturer. Even if you would prefer to use Apple's Store it's wrong to deny others (both producers and consumers) free choice.

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.

Unions are broadly democratic institutions. Apple isn't.

Re: Rethinking the App Store

#347

Post by marcus_holmes »

Tijdreiziger wrote: post #292
anoncake wrote: post #288

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

No, you shouldn't need to trust software in the first place. Why should my email client be allowed to access my camera, whether I trust it or not?

At some point, you have to trust some software. Even if it's just the sandbox maker.

We can go two ways with this:

1. We teach users how to use computers so they don't hurt themselves. Some still will, because they don't get it.

2. We clamp down on all uses of computers so that they're safe for uneducated users to use. Only authorised corporate programmers are allowed to create applications. Users are "safe", but treated badly by their corporate overlords.

I want scenario 1 (with no sandbox and the freedom to install whatever I like). Scenario 2 is where Apple is headed.

Re: Rethinking the App Store

#348

Post by hirako2000 »

heisenzombie wrote: post #283
mthoms wrote: post #198

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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 i…

Then a free competitor will step in a offer those binaries via a FreeAppBay store. Which would grow and have an inventory of all the apps out there.

Re: Rethinking the App Store

#349

Post by realityking »

judge2020 wrote: post #285
robterrell wrote: post #271

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

YouTube still gets the 15% deal. You don't have to offer annual subscriptions to get it. The only requirement is, that it's auto-renewing.

> During a subscriber’s first year of service, you receive 70% of the subscription price at each billing cycle, minus applicable taxes. After a subscriber accumulates one year of paid service, your net revenue increases to 85% of the subscription price, minus applicable taxes.

Source: https://developer.apple.com/app-store/subscriptions/#revenue...

Re: Rethinking the App Store

#350

Post by auggierose »

romanoderoma wrote: post #298
auggierose wrote: post #275

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Now imagine the only software you are allowed to write is the one that can meet all accessibility requirements.

That should be the norm if you care about it... It's like saying that if you work in constructions you shouldn't care about accessibility unless you work on government's buildings But people with disabilities go to cinemas, pubs, bars, restaurants, museums, stadiums, ballrooms etc. etc. I honestly don't see your point

I guess we have to disagree here. Software is much more flexible than a building. People have been trying to draw these construction work - software analogies forever now, and it is just bullocks. Making a building is a solved problem. Most interesting software isn't a solved problem, otherwise you wouldn't need that software in the first place. Now is it for Microsoft a good idea to make their Office software accessible? For sure. Is it for me a good idea to make the software I write accessible? What does that even mean in the various contexts? It's not like you add an elevator and an extra bathroom and you are good. Will I be getting paid for the huge amount of extra work I need to do to produce something that's truly accessible and not just a lip service?
Post reply on HN