Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

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

appfairness.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

241–250 of 1001 posts

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

#241

Post by thatguy0900 »

dividuum wrote: post #135
AlexandrB wrote: post #86

From https://appfairness.org/our-vision/ > No app store owner should prohibit third parties from offering competing app stores on the app store owner’s platform, or discourage developers or consumers from using them. I don't disagree but does this mean Sony should allow, for example, Steam to be installed on the PS5? Or is the definition of "App Store" used here narrow and arbitrary?

Also why limit to app stores. I want to sell my own cosmetics on their fortnite item store (jk, I don’t). Valve allows that for games like CSGO, if I understand that correctly. The whole „they build a platform, I want a part“ is weird.

Bethesda and valve tried this with skyrim paid mods, it didn't go over well and valve canceled it. They tried again with creation club, but it's not too popular. https://fallout.fandom.com/wiki/Creation_Club#History

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

#242

Post by havelhovel »

itg wrote: post #98

It boggles my mind that there are people rooting for Apple to "win" here. Whatever you think of Epic, Spotify, etc, the changes they propose would be a win for customers to use the devices the way they want to. If you only want to download apps from Apple's approved app store, they are not taking that away from you.

Not everyone values having an open device. Being my family and friends’ on-call tech support tells me this would in fact be a negative.

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

#243

Post by realusername »

zepto wrote: post #28
supercanuck wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They have a monopoly over the apps on the iOS.

In that case every single retail store has a monopoly on the products they sell. This is a meaningless definition of monopoly.

Except in the retail world, there's competition between stores. Competition is non-existent in the mobile world, there's only two companies and both have the exact same fees and very similar policies.

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

#244

Post by acituan »

ilikehurdles wrote: post #180
echelon wrote: post #167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your perspective makes me sad. I'm honestly depressed because people rush to defend bad behavior of their favorite monopoly. Like, physically holding back tears. Serious. What is wrong with us? Our computers and technology have been locked down by anti-competitive juggernauts. Our legislators have written laws that cede more of our liberties and privacy. This modern internet sucks so much and I want to go back to whe…

> 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…

> Epic and Spotify are pushing their own walled gardens, they just want to do it with a bigger profit margin.

There is absolutely no problem with that because it cures the one and only walled garden problem. If they implement a subpar walled garden, it will be up to the users to exercise choice on using them, which they currently can't.

This is the core of the opponent processes of markets. It is irrelevant to demand ideological purity from opponents, what matters is the resulting dynamics their actions create, in this case creating a previously non-existing competition space on iOS app installs.

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

#245

Post by inigoalonso »

jakeva wrote: post #69
singularity2001 wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It should be mandatory to allow installing arbitrary apps, which has recently become nigh impossible, at least I couldn't find any way to distribute my rejected app.

Any justification for forcing a hardware maker to allow arbitrary apps on their hardware, aside from your personal experience with being rejected?

I don't care about their hardware, I care about the hardware I own.

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

#246

Post by katbyte »

jpambrun wrote: post #194
kemiller wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No... many people actually appreciate the walled garden as consumers.

Allowing other stores doesn't mean you have to use them. You could still have your curated experience on the Apple store. Why do you want to impose your views on others?

Because my parents or none tech friends would use them and then come to me when their phones fucked

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

#247

Post by user5994461 »

joshstrange wrote: post #224
user5994461 wrote: post #182

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For reference, all of these practices are abusive and will void the subscription contract in civil law (Europe). Ask for a refund and perform a charge back if they don't refund. I wrote a detailed article about it, what every developer should know about software subscriptions and civil law: https://thehftguy.com/2020/09/08/what-every-developer-should...

> For reference, all of these practices are abusive and will void the subscription contract in civil law (Europe). Ask for a refund and perform a charge back if they don't refund. Do you think that really matters to or is realistic for the average non-technical user? Heck even as technical user I don't want to deal with that crap, I want 1 click unsubscribe which I get through App Store subscriptions.

I think it matters that the law is on the side of the consumer, least the big company would sue the customer for charge back and try to take over their home as damages.

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

#248

Post by mola »

echelon wrote: post #167
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…

Your perspective makes me sad. I'm honestly depressed because people rush to defend bad behavior of their favorite monopoly. Like, physically holding back tears. Serious. What is wrong with us? Our computers and technology have been locked down by anti-competitive juggernauts. Our legislators have written laws that cede more of our liberties and privacy. This modern internet sucks so much and I want to go back to whe…

What is wrong is that somehow we believe that if you set up a system where the end goal is growth by any means necessary unless explicitly disallowed by law is the moral thing to do it'll turn out any different.

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

#249

Post by stefano »

DevKoala wrote: post #184
eertami wrote: post #171

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure, but it's of course surprising such people would be present on HN.

Why? As a developer it sounds like a nightmare, but as a costumer, I like it. It makes for a great experience.

Because it's as far as you can go from being a "Hacker".

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

#250

Post by sosborn »

jpambrun wrote: post #194
kemiller wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No... many people actually appreciate the walled garden as consumers.

Allowing other stores doesn't mean you have to use them. You could still have your curated experience on the Apple store. Why do you want to impose your views on others?

You don't have to use Apple. You could still have your non-curated experience with Android. Why do you want to impose your view on others?
Post reply on HN