Epic, Spotify, and Tinder form advocacy group to push for app store changes

>Most users, however, would have a way worse experience using their phone if they were given this option, because a non-trivial percentage of them would follow the tutorials online provided to them by malware authors to install their malware.

I think Apple fans exagerrate when they say that most users are so "inexperienced" to get taken advantage off.

- this number of completly inexperienced user is not proven to be as large, if you look at Android or OSX you don't see 51% of users having malware on their machine

- with the amount of money Apple has they could afford to improve the security by adding more sand boxing and making unlocking of the phone by "tricked incompetent users almost impossible"

- I assume apps and websites can use your microphone and camera on your phone, it is under soem popup/permission prompt, why do you trust the "inexperienced users" with the camera permissions some bad person could trick them.

- "protecting" an unknown small number of users by limiting the rest makes no sense, what makes more sense is MONEY, Apple makes more money by locking things down and getting 30% from apps, subscrip[tions and the much hated lootboxes

Right. I'm honestly having a hard time thinking of situations where a seller like Cheerios would be able to say, "no, everyone is going to offer our products at $2.50 for the next week." I'd be tempted to call that anticompetitive in the opposite direction, of course a seller should be allowed to set their own prices and decide for themselves whether they want to participate in a promotion.

It's not like there aren't at least somewhat better analogies they could have used. Imagine if you bought an Apple Phone from Best Buy and then that compiled version of iOS wasn't allowed to mention anywhere that you could get support from Genius Bars instead of Best Buy. Or imagine if you bought a vacuum cleaner from Walmart, and the manufacturer wasn't allowed to include any inserts inside of the box that linked to their own store for replacement parts.

But even with a better analogy, why is this argument being brought up in this specific section? I expected their user freedom section to talk more about sideloading, or right to repair, or emulation, and they just can't stop fixating on the 30% fee.

From the same section:

> Here’s an example of how this problem manifests itself: Epic produces once of the most popular video games of all time, Fortnite. If a Fortnite player were to buy an upgrade in the App Store, that individual might be charged $9.99. However, that same upgrade costs only $7.99 when purchased directly through Epic.

Cool argument, but that has nothing to do with user freedom; users are still perfectly free to buy upgrades from Epic directly.

It feels like they came up with one objection and then poorly pasted it into 3 sections.

I’m not a huge fan of Apple’s arbitrary-feeling restrictions on developers and of their market power, but the following argument can be made to show they really are not monopolistic abusers who should be regulated against:

Costco charges a membership to use their store (“platform”), similar to buying an iPhone. Costco offers reduced-price store brand goods. Costco controls and decides which third-party goods are available in the store. This is all generally considered to be to the consumers advantage due to lower prices and good experience. If the consumer does not like Costco, they can go to a different store. If a consumer does not like the experience of purchasing their apps in the app store, they can use Safari to access the web site, purchase an Android or use a PC for their computing needs, and a console/portable for their gaming needs. The number of competitors to the iPhone platform is lower than the number of competitors to Costco, but it’s not an insignificant number of alternatives. If ALL mobile platforms did not allow sideloading and charged similar rates, AND it was impossible to create a new mobile platform (admittedly difficult, RIP Microsoft, Blackberry, Nokia, Firefox OS) AND it could be shown webapps are not viable (they are viable) then Apple plus the other platform might have an anti-trust problem.

As it is it’s a unfair to punish Apple for successfully curating a good experience where users are happy and comfortable spending money. All retailers set the conditions for sellers to sell with them.

What do you disagree with on this page?

https://appfairness.org/our-vision/

Oh fuck Tinder:

In addition to being riddled with scammers and "escort" services in some regions and choosing to do nothing about it, older men are charged more for using Tinder's premium service: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24129986

I do not respect Tinder at all. They have scummy practices and I actually got upset with Apple for giving them featured spots on the App Store so often. Talk about biting the hand that feeds you!

On the other hand, Apple unconditionally refunded my Tinder in-app purchase when I fell to one of their scams.

Seeing Tinder in any group will just make me automatically align with that group's antipode.