Epic, Spotify, and Tinder form advocacy group to push for app store changes • Hacker News Board

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

#201

Post by _mkef » Thu, Sep 24, 2020, 4:16 PM UTC

dlubarov wrote: post #136

asou wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Considering Tinder's parent ( The Match Group ) got sued by the FTC for fraud, not very smart to include them. Intentionally making subscriptions hard to cancel is one of the behaviors Apple's payment system seeks to prevent. As much as I like Tim Sweeney's arguments for lower royalties, he doesn't have half a toe to stand on. Don't want to pay the Apple tax, make your own phone. This fairness coalition is free to ma…

> The government can not compel two companies to engage in a contract. It seems like there ought to be exceptions to prevent certain gatekeeping behavior. As a very extreme example, suppose a company bought up a set of private roads in such a way that without their roads, people in a certain area could not access the rest of the country. One would hope that the government would compel the gatekeeper to do business wi…

Everyone can access all the above the services via the original personal computing device, a PC.

Other roads exists. If I have a private road, but 3 or 4 other roads still go to the same place you can't drive over my gate since you feel like it

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

#202

Post by 52-6F-62 » Thu, Sep 24, 2020, 4:16 PM UTC

candiddevmike wrote: post #62

Device freedom is a must. Any device should be completely controllable by the end user. There's two parts to this to me: app stores and the data collected by the devices. Users should have the freedom to install any software on their devices, period. Users should also have the freedom to stop all data collection by these devices. This applies to all electronics--video game consoles, TVs, printers, who knows what else…

The logical conclusion then is that the only device that should be allowed to be manufactured is a personal computer.

Companies producing specialized hardware/software couplings does not preclude another company developing open options.

I usually choose an open option for most of what I do but when it comes to some mindless gaming or my phone that I use for some sensitive matters I want them limited in their scope in a big way.

I don't understand this all-or-nothing argument that seems to be made when it doesn't reflect the reality of the situation.

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

#203

Post by granzymes » Thu, Sep 24, 2020, 4:16 PM UTC

crazygringo wrote: post #159

temp667 wrote: post #97

Haha - this illustrates WHY the app store is so popular. You've got Match.com (owns tinder). Repeat FTC offender (most scammmers never get the FTC slap on the wrist). "Match Group also allegedly makes it too difficult to cancel a subscription through “confusing and cumbersome cancellation practices.” The FTC claims users must click through two pages of survey questions and cites a 2015 internal presentation that note…

> this illustrates WHY the app store is so popular No it doesn't. The app store is "popular" because Apple users don't have a choice. It's "popular" because they're forced to use it. I'm neither defending it or criticizing it... but let's not pretend like consumers are choosing the app store. Users in general are choosing Apple vs Android primarily for reasons that have nothing to do with an app store (i.e. hardware,…

No the parent is right, I manage as many subscriptions as possible through Apple and have no desire to move to another platform until they provide the same policy guarantees.

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

#204

Post by pb7 » Thu, Sep 24, 2020, 4:17 PM UTC

bluedevil2k wrote: post #71

doublerabbit wrote: post #2

"The Coalition for App Fairness", I cannot not laugh. On the stage you have: Epic - Trying to be the next Valve/Steam. Happy to rip off their customers via in-game transactions. Spotify - Who rip off artists by either failing or paying very little in royalties. Tinder - Sells sex. None of these companies have any care for the actual developer; who are the folk trying to make a living from their creations.

> Happy to rip off their customers via in-game transactions. If people are happy and willingly buying skins, dances, and battle passes, that's not a rip-off.

How is this different than "if developers are happy and willingly develop for iOS then [the fees] are not a rip-off"?

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

#205

Post by ilikehurdles » Thu, Sep 24, 2020, 4:17 PM UTC

Apocryphon wrote: post #189

ilikehurdles wrote: post #180

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I want a world where we're free to install whatever we want on our devices or distribute our hard work to others without having to implement it 5 different ways. I do too, but your appeal to emotion is off-topic. This has nothing to do with the lawsuit. None of these companies want that, nor are they working toward that. Epic and Spotify are pushing their own walled gardens, they just want to do it with a bigger pr…

Basecamp and Tile want walled gardens?

Epic and Spotify.

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

#206

Post by edmundsauto » Thu, Sep 24, 2020, 4:17 PM UTC

freedomben wrote: post #181

flenserboy wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Apple's advertising is built on security and privacy — allowing other App Stores on their system would only open up users to invasive tracking & attacks. I want my desktop system to be open as can be; I'm perfectly happy with my phone being (somewhat) locked down. That said, Apple could allow users to choose to install other App Stores on their devices, but at the cost of their devices being considered hopelessly com…

> Apple's advertising is built on security and privacy — allowing other App Stores on their system would only open up users to invasive tracking & attacks. But why? If sideloading requires explicit user action and acknowledgment of danger, why would this affect their brand of safety and privacy in any way? The users who want a safe controlled environment can easily choose to stay in that environment. I just do not un…

Because these users, regardless of what they previously clicked, will expect Apple to support it. And end to end support is kind of one of the big deals about the iPhone.

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

#207

Post by Razengan » Thu, Sep 24, 2020, 4:18 PM UTC

uryga wrote: post #138

sneak wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If users didn’t want these things, users wouldn’t buy them. For the vast majority of people, and iPhone is way, way better than a computer that can run any app, precisely because it can’t run any app they click on. I’m a hacker, so I would love to be able to install any software I want on my iPhone, and introspect it in other ways. Most users, however, would have a way worse experience using their phone if they were…

> If users didn’t want these things, users wouldn’t buy them. doesn't follow. people buying a thing despite flaw X just means don't consider X a dealbreaker, not that they actually want X

..What? If X isn't a dealbreaker, then obviously customers are fine with X.

If they weren't, it would be a dealbreaker.

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

#208

Post by gpm » Thu, Sep 24, 2020, 4:18 PM UTC

All the arguments about what company is most evil entirely miss the point.

You don't make a decision on a specific issue based on what company you like more, you base it on who is right on the specific issue.

From an ethical perspective that's what having a codified rule of laws is all about. Everyone get's the same rules no matter how much you like them. You don't arbitrarily punish people for doing things you don't like by denying them unrelated things that they are entitled to unless you go in front of a judge and get a judge to order that as a punishment for doing the thing you don't like.

From a entirely practical and short term perspective these decisions do not just impact the companies you don't like, they also impact everyone else because our legal system puts a very heavy weight on precedent.

I'm strongly reminded of the quote "Freedom of speech doesn't protect speech you like; it protects speech you don't like." (though obviously in this case it is applied to justice in general instead of speech in particular).

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

#209

Post by realusername » Thu, Sep 24, 2020, 4:18 PM UTC

kevincox wrote: post #193

dpratt wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a flawed analogy. The correct one would be Cheerios printing "If you buy me at Costco, I cost $1 less" on the outside of the box. No rational retailer that isn't Costco would carry that product.

However the flaw in your analogy is that there is very little lock-in to particular retailers where is there is a huge lock-in to a phone you just bought.

And additionally there's dozens of supermarkets, thin margins and high competition. The mobile app market has exactly two companies with the exact same fees...

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

#210

Post by tannedNerd » Thu, Sep 24, 2020, 4:18 PM UTC

Dahoon wrote: post #157

AlexandrB wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From https://appfairness.org/issues/30-app-tax/ > For most purchases made within its App Store, Apple takes 30% of the purchase price. No other transaction fee — in any industry — comes close. This is a straight-up lie and Epic, being in the gaming industry, knows it. Steam takes the same 30% (unless you're huge) and is Epic's direct competitor on PC. Not to mention every other gaming platform[1]. [1] https://www.ign…

It isn't a lie. Steam takes a cut too yes, but Apple takes a cut after that 30% you mention. You don't pay 30% to Steam from in-app purchases. No one except Apple force you to use its payment system and take an additional 30% cut after the first 30% cut of the app price. Unless you are a small indie developer you end up paying way more to Apple than any other platform.

What? They still force you to list DLC in steam store listings and to use the steam system (aka 30%) unless you have a special contract with them like apple does with Amazon.