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

491–500 of 1001 posts

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

#491

Post by sidibe »

jpambrun wrote: post #353
sosborn wrote: post #250

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

That's dishonest. The situation is identical on Android. Yes. You can "technically" sideload apps, but there is so many hoops to go through that you really can't distribute your application this way.

> there is so many hoops to go through that you really can't distribute your application this way

One hoop. Turn on one setting, from there it's just clicking to download an apk and approving the dialog box.

The real reason it's hard to distribute your application outside of Play store is discovery.

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

#492

Post by chiefalchemist »

dgellow wrote: post #296
danShumway wrote: post #11

Can we just link directly to the advocacy group's page ( https://appfairness.org/ )? I'm not certain the article is adding anything. ---- I'm generally supportive of at least some of Epic's arguments towards Apple, and I do believe that Apple (and multiple other FAANG companies) are engaged in anti-competitive behavior that's currently hurting the market. But a lot of the arguments I'm reading on the App Fairness sit…

What I learned from past experiences is to never use analogies. They are almost always a source of distraction, people start to argue about the analogy itself instead of the topic at hand, which is almost always completely counter productive. Also it often only makes sense in the mind of the author...

Analogies being bad? I think it depends where. Here on HN? Yeah, despite it's affinity for the straight and narrow threads go often the rails often enough. Sure, the discourse is civil. But it's still off on a pointless tangent.

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

#493

Post by kodablah »

zepto wrote: post #429
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…

This! Which is why I absolutely reject Epic et al’s position. They want to be part of a small exclusive group of store owners who get to share in the benefits of Apple’s investments. Very different from the device freedom you are calling for. It must also be said that device freedom cannot come at the cost of security and trust. I and presumably you, have the capability to make good decisions about what software to t…

> They want to be part of a small exclusive group of store owners who get to share in the benefits of Apple’s investments.

Exclusive? Why can't I write an app store?

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

#494

Post by bogwog »

zepto wrote: post #421
actuator wrote: post #324

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have also been really surprised with the whole debate on this saga here. For developers, this looks like such a no brainer because they should personally relate to what these companies are asking for.

None of this would be great for developers. Having to deal with a multitude of stores run by companies that are even shadier than Apple is not good.

Are you kidding? Being able to sell on more than one store is a massive advantage. Besides the obvious lower risks and lower fees, you can also benefit from better exposure and discovery (two things that are terrible on the app store and google play) especially in niche stores.

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

#495

Post by pb7 »

bluedevil2k wrote: post #483
pb7 wrote: post #476

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No one is forcing them to develop for iOS. I will bet you dollars to donuts developers are very happy about the money they make from iOS otherwise they wouldn't be there.

> Otherwise they wouldn't be there They're on the App Store because they have no choice and they need to make money to pay for things like food, rent, etc. I'll bet you dollars to donuts if some regulation required Apple to allow App Stores from other companies, most developers would dump Apple's in a heartbeat.

>They're on the App Store because they have no choice and they need to make money to pay for things like food, rent, etc.

That's crazy how before 2008 no developer was able to pay for food and rent. Sounds dreadful. Too bad there's no alternative that has an even bigger share of the total mobile market. Come on, dude.

>I'll bet you dollars to donuts if some regulation required Apple to allow App Stores from other companies, most developers would dump Apple's in a heartbeat.

Right, the same way that most car companies would abandon emissions standards if the EPA no longer forced them to (see: Volkswagen emissions scandal). That doesn't make it a good thing for consumers.

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

#496

Post by cwhiz »

actuator wrote: post #471
cwhiz wrote: post #437

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Microsoft has the Xbox Game Pass app on Android, Apple is doing the opposite. I don't see the relevance? Microsoft does not allow any other company to distribute digital games for Microsoft consoles. You, nor anyone else, may create an Xbox store and sell digital games that will run on Xbox consoles. >I think the analogy doesn't fit. Like a laptop/desktop, smartphones are general computing platforms. Specific purpos…

> I don't see the relevance? Microsoft does not allow any other company to distribute digital games for Microsoft consoles. You, nor anyone else, may create an Xbox store and sell digital games that will run on Xbox consoles. While I would even argue for openness there but you are comparing a specific use platform to a general computing platform. > Is that not what we have? If you don't like Apple then you can go buy…

>While I would even argue for openness there but you are comparing a specific use platform to a general computing platform.

I don't understand the distinction you are trying to make. How is iOS fundamentally different from the Xbox OS? Microsoft owns the OS and the hardware. Microsoft have several variants of the Xbox hardware for sale, and have a complete monopoly on digital game distribution through their OS.

>Apple is not a minority by any stretch. They own half of the smartphones sold in US and a significant share in the world. If I am a platform like Spotify I have to be on it, otherwise I lose a significant userbase. Adding to this, a service like Hey saw 90% of the revenue come from iPhones. They were signing up users on the web, just turns out that 90% of their paying users had iPhones.

According to IDC[0], Apple commands 14.4% of the worldwide market share. In the US, Apple commands a little under half [1]. Apple is unequivocally a minority player in the smartphone market.

>Adding to that, Spotify has to compete with Apple Music which doesn't pay the 30% tax, gets free placement on the phone and store and deep integrations with their product.

Spotify chooses to not deeply integrate with Apple. WatchOS allowed third party streaming several years ago and Spotify is one of the few music services out there that still refuse to support it. That's on Spotify and Spotify alone. The lack of a fee on the store could be considered unfair, but is no more fair or unfair than Google offering a music service, which they do.

>As a developer does this seem fair to you?

Not really, but that is beside the point to me. We have a free market and there are alternatives to Apple. If Apple has a monopoly then I think we need to fundamentally blow up this entire market, because by that definition nearly every tech company out there has a monopoly. I believe this line of reasoning would forbid Epic from exclusively selling cars in Rocket League, and I find that absurd. If I don't like the Apple platform I can go to a competitor and support them instead.

[0]: https://www.idc.com/promo/smartphone-market-share/os [1]: https://www.statista.com/statistics/266572/market-share-held...

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

#497

Post by _mkef »

joenathanone wrote: post #469
seahawks78 wrote: post #458

Correct me if I am wrong but the advocacy group is essentially arguing that let me use your platform (marketplace) services and get a free ride doing so. Kind of like taking an Uber where at the end of the ride the driver just says: "you know what, lets ditch Uber, pull out your credit card and settle between the two of us. And I will charge you much lower!!" Aha.

The analogy only works if the only way to get to your destination was to use Uber. iOS doesn't allow app installs outside of the store.

You don't need to use IOS to play games, listen to music or date.

You could go down to a record store, hosting a trivia night, that's a game. Then buy some records, and talk to a nice potential partner.

Done, you've accomplished all of these things without the use of IOS!

Less cheeky , you can do all of those things on a PC, on an Android device, etc.

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

#499

Post by bhupy »

mthoms wrote: post #237
burlesona wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, it means Sony has to add Steam to PS5 or else it is narrow and arbitrary. To me the iPhone is a console, end of story. If you like the console experience, it’s a great device. If you don’t, there are a million android and even alternative OS based phones out there which are more like a PC. If you want your phone to be a PC, you should do what most people around the world do and buy one of those. Instead we have…

>To me the iPhone is a console, end of story. I'm so tired of hearing this ridiculous analogy. From a purely technical stand point it may be true, but for a large chunk of the population, the smartphone is their one and only connection to the digital world. It controls their connection to their bank accounts, governments, news/discourse, family, friends, dating life, education (formal and informal), medical informati…

Only 10 years ago, none of what you said was true. Who knows what the world will look like 10 years from now. Basing policy on the current ephemeral norms rather than consistently applied principles seems ill-advised.

Also, even in a world where the mobile phone is that ubiquitous and important, there's no inherent societal obligation that one absolutely NEEDS to use a particular company's phone, especially in a market that has plenty of alternatives.

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

#500

Post by lotsofpulp »

leetcrew wrote: post #473
lotsofpulp wrote: post #337

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What does it mean for an analogy to be powerful? I typically see analogies used to support an argument, which analogies don't do. Hence you see the conversation break down into whether or not the analogy is accurate or not. Analogies illustrate a concept. They don't establish reasoning or causation or proof.

argument by analogy is something like A -> B, C is similar to A in all ways that matter, thus (A -> B) -> (C -> D). analogies are powerful when the other person already agrees that (A -> B) and doesn't notice any important differences between A and C. if you use an analogy where the other person doesn't agree that A -> B in the first place, you'll never get anywhere. if they are really stubborn, they will come up wit…

> C is similar to A in all ways that matter

I have never seen this be determine-able in real life scenarios

>analogies are not very good in arguments where the other person is resisting the conclusion you want to draw. they can be great when you are trying to teach/explain something to someone who trusts you though.

This is a great statement to show why analogies are bad and how they are abused.

Post reply on HN