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

601–610 of 1001 posts

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

#601

Post by oscargrouch »

karpierz wrote: post #19

If I build an operating system + hardware, should I be legally mandated to provide tooling to make it easy for users to find and install arbitrary software?

"arbitrary software"...

Take the world "arbitrary" and we can see the truth.

Now let me rephrase this in the right way, to avoid the language tricks used on your question.

Should the user have the right to install software on the device they bough and therefore, they own?

Its not "legally mandating" the provider to be "forced" to do anything. Its just a matter of rights of the user who buy stuff from anyone.

Its a pure ethical thing to do, that protects the user freedom, and thats what the law should do, to protect the rights of the party with the least power in a negotiation between two parties. Especially if the concept of property and ownership is involved.

I dont get the half of the comments in this thread. If we depended on your point of views, we would be stuck with the Intels, Microsoft's, Apples and the likes with absolute control into our digital lifes.

Remember Prism and the collusion of goverment spy agencies and tech companies to know everything everyone was doing?

Now imagine how much power this represents? Imagine a modern fascist with that much power on his hands? What would he would be able to do?

You dont even need to get into conspiracy theories, but just think about the rights and freedoms of the users against the effort of tech companies to control them.

But to avoid the centralization of power and control would be a side-effect of people standing for those simple right's.

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

#602

Post by pb7 »

yladiz wrote: post #428

Why should I read this website and take it seriously if I can't even read the cookie policy without accepting cookies, and when I actually do attempt to read the policy (thanks Reader Mode) I am told that to opt-out I have to disable cookies in my browser? Looking further and reading their privacy policy in the section titled "Your European Rights", I see this: > You have the right to ask us not to process your Perso…

It's probably because they care very little about consumer rights and are just doing what companies do: attempt to make the most money possible.

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

#603

Post by jdauriemma »

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.

I don't think "free ride" has ever described developer relationships with the App Store. The main pushback seems to be against Apple leveraging their App Store to benefit their payment processing and other services that have nothing to do with distributing software. I think it's more like Uber making drivers buy their tires through an "Uber Store" as a condition of being on the platform. It's shady and ultimately hurts the end user.

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

#604

Post by sarakayakomzin »

gpm wrote: post #512
jariel wrote: post #502

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The issue is 'anti competitiveness' not 'evil' and most arguments are pointed at that.

Things have improved since I posted this. At the time I posted this the top comment and many other highly voted comments were just criticizing epic, spotify, and tinder. E.g. complaining that epic sells to kids, spotify doesn't pay artists enough, and that tinder sells sex and commits age discrimination. Regardless of whether or not they are valid complaints, they aren't at all related to anti trust (or if they are,…

> Things have improved since I posted this.

>Regardless of whether or not they are valid complaints

>This use to be the top comment

>This was the comment that was the tipping point for me making the post

>>> Things have improved since I posted this.

I mean, you look at something new and you're going to have low-quality comments based on their first thoughts on something. I don't understand the confusion.

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

#605

Post by mercurysmessage »

geodel wrote: post #464
gpm wrote: post #208

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…

> I'm strongly reminded of the quote "Freedom of speech doesn't protect speech you like; it protects speech you don't like... Modern addendum is "You can have Freedom Of Speech but no guarantee for Freedom After speech." Edit: Just to clarify, It is not my opinion. It is Social media warriors warning people "Free speech is not free of consequences"

"Free speech is not free of consequences"

This is absolutely true though? I fail to see your point.

You are free to say what you want, and other people are free to criticize you for it. If you don't support the right to criticize, you don't support free speech.

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

#606

Post by temp667 »

tmotwu wrote: post #292
temp667 wrote: post #257

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"illusion"? It's relative security. On the iphone, if I buy a used phone and a scammer has popped a cheapo battery in to show no battery life slow down - apple alerts me (also unpopular on HN BTW). If I buy an android phone from most carriers, their "security" involved pre-loading it with unremovable adware and tracking apps. This is more secure - are you serious? The google play store has less malware? The permissio…

In the meantime, nothing stops a scammer from selling you a jailbroken device. App permissioning has nothing to do with the App Store and it's hostile policies towards developers. You can set the same permissioning rules on rival devices as well. The false narrative that the App Store exists to protect you needs to be dispelled forever. The trust consumers have to install any App in the App Store is far more terrifyi…

Apple as an ecosystem that emphasizes trust. They believe they can charge a premium for this. Whether you think this should be "dispelled forever" is up to you - feel free to market your carriers phone however you want.

The app store, as the method that pricing, refunds, subscriptions etc are handled, is part of this story of trust or lack of trust.

And yes - apple does review use of permission by developers upon submission. Want to use a touch bar api, they may ask you to show how that feature is used in app (third party libs would use these features to help fingerprint machines etc). The irony - we've had people here complaining about how unfair it was their app was rejected (often because they link without knowing to some scam monetization library that abuses or tries to abuse apis).

What is incredible is that developers on HN seem to have no clue why people actually like what apple does. For example, when they notified you that you had a non-genuine battery - that was met with HN outrage. When they did things that made replacing certain key security sensitive parts harder (finger print sensor for unlock etc) - again outrage, and apparently they figured out a way to make it easier without losing security.

The name of the game these days is trust. Do you trust you telecom to ship a bloat free phone? Apple? The folks who have that trust are going to be able to charge a premium and gain more control.

The desire to have consumers installing any app from anywhere on the web that you can browse to using the web browser is FAR FAR more terrifying - but is what HN comments push over and over. Reality - when it comes time to buy their kids a phone, these same outraged HN folks - buy their kids an iphone :)

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

#607

Post by pornel »

nickysielicki wrote: post #594
joenathanone wrote: post #469

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The analogy works perfectly -- nobody has to buy an iPhone.

I bought an iPhone, and I'm not getting that 30% cut. Where's my money?

Apple wants to get paid twice for the same thing. Apple sells me a device, and then they sell me (a device user) as their product to app developers.

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

#608

Post by bogwog »

judge2020 wrote: post #553
bogwog wrote: post #489

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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. Can you clarify what you mean by this?

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-apple-epic-games/apple-sa...

I don't see how that's relevant. Epic isn't suing Apple so that they can have exclusive rights to open a second app store, they're suing to allow third-party app stores in general. If Epic wins, they aren't going to be part of a small group of store owners; anyone would be able to open their own competing store.

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

#609

Post by Apocryphon »

nxc18 wrote: post #585
Apocryphon wrote: post #536

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is scaremongering. Android has alternative app stores and most apps don't bother releasing to them. iOS would not fragment overnight into dozens of app stores if it was to become open. Likely the majority of apps would still target the App Store, with a handful of major competing stores. These competitors would be incentivized to attract developers, otherwise they would end up with the same lack of apps that kil…

The basis for this belief is that Epic also sued Google Play for creating the existing conditions that you describe. Epic doesn't want to turn iOS into Android (which is bad enough on its own), they want to open the floodgates on Android, too.

But I don't care about Epic, nor am I talking about them. I'm talking about the hypothetical scenario where Apple allows alternative app stores to exist. I'm not framing this under Epic's terms.

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

#610

Post by abc-xyz »

FreeFull wrote: post #592
zepto wrote: post #522

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For the same reason you can’t build a phone. You’ll be competing with multi-billion dollar corporations who have exclusive content and nobody will bother with your store.

On Android there is the F-Droid software repository, and there is no issue of competition with the Play Store. Would things be different on Apple phones?

Android also have a lot of malware issues. I’ve had to help factory reset Android phones quite a few times because friends and family ended up getting spammed with sex notifications and had their search engine hijacked. Windows and OSX suffers from the same problems. The reason these platforms suffer from malware, while iOS does not, is because they allow third-party installations.
Post reply on HN