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

#611

Post by zepto » Thu, Sep 24, 2020, 7:26 PM UTC

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?

Developers can safely ignore the F-Droid store because it represents no significant market share.

This will not be true of the stores that Epic, Facebook, and Google, and Amazon et al would start up on iOS.

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

#612

Post by IshKebab » Thu, Sep 24, 2020, 7:26 PM UTC

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...

I agree. Analogies are never perfect, and people always pick apart the bits of the analogy that aren't actually relevant.

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

#613

Post by dragonwriter » Thu, Sep 24, 2020, 7:28 PM UTC

lostgame wrote: post #265

dragonwriter wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Epic; in particular, is just handling this situation laughably at best. I can't imagine taking someone to court over my own intentionally sneaky violation of a company's set of rules. There's nothing laughable about having a layered strategy of “try not to get caught, and, in case you are caught, have a backup argument that enforcement of the rules is illegal in any case.”

I believe it doesn't uphold the 'spirit' of the law. It's sneaky/sneaking. They could've had a discussion with Apple, or gone to court about it; ahead of time. What they did was sneaking around; plain and simple, and Apple just responded the way they would to any app that suddenly activated a secret backdoor that would violate their terms and conditions. They invalidated their own potential for legal standing by inte…

> They're not standing for rights. They're standing for profits.

The entire reason we have a private right of action for firms (rather than just a public right of action) in antitrust law is that actors selfishly standing up for their own profits will incidentally serve the public interest. The law does not rely on or expect litigants (other than those acting in the direct employ of the government) to seek to serve any interest other than their own narrow interests, instead it is (insofar as it seeks to serve a public interest, which is sadly not always the intent of the law to start with) designed to achieve the public interest by shaping private incentives so that the pursuit of private interest itself moves the public interest forward.

So, while what you describe in the above quote about Epic is unquestionably true, that's exactly how the law is supposed to work.

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

#614

Post by Spooks » Thu, Sep 24, 2020, 7:28 PM UTC

ryandrake wrote: post #516

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?

As a user, I don't want more app stores all over my phone. I don't want more app stores all over my game console or PC either. Compare it to the Windows gaming world, where if you want game 1, you need to go to store A, if you want game 2, you need to install store B, if you want game 3, you need to install store C. Yuck! What end user wants that hassle?

I would definitely want more app stores on my game console. Sometimes the deals are just not there, for PC it has a lot of options, and it has been good for consumers, Epic store has been giving away free games like it was going out of business

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

#615

Post by headmelted » Thu, Sep 24, 2020, 7:31 PM UTC

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"

False.

Epic made very clear, early on, IN THEIR COURT FILING that their case was an attempt to legally force Apple and Google to allow for third party app stores to exist equitably on iOS and Android.

Does that benefit Epic substantially? Of course it does. They want a mobile Epic Games Store on both platforms. But it would also break the stranglehold duopoly that Google and Apple have over the mobile software marketplace.

Example to prove the point: Nothing in Epic's proposals or court filing would prevent Steam Mobile or the Microsoft App Store from launching on iOS and Android on the same terms that Epic prevailed on in court. That's about as far away from anti-competitive behaviour as this court case could possibly hope to be.

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

#616

Post by giantrobot » Thu, Sep 24, 2020, 7:31 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…

You're not going to get open firmware. Cell phones are radio transceivers in the hands of millions of unlicensed users. The only reason any of the cellular infrastructure works is all the devices run tested and certified firmware.

For most cellular basebands the PHY is more powerful and capable than the regulations would normally allow. They only get certified for consumer use because the firmware bounds the operation to the regulated envelopes.

No devices would ever be allowed to be sold on the consumer market if end users could go tweak the firmware or run uncertified firmwares. They shouldn't be allowed to be sold. The difference between a transmitter and jammer is a pretty fine line.

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

#617

Post by panragon » Thu, Sep 24, 2020, 7:31 PM UTC

stale2002 wrote: post #393

panragon wrote: post #271

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have this discussion nearly daily when talking with Android users. The iPhone is not a modular unit that can be tampered with at all, but despite even being a software developer, I do not actually care about my phone being modular. I want it to work and I want it to work well across the entire platform. Not only does iOS severely limit your options for changing your phone's UX, something a lot of people lament abou…

> Please don't give me root access to my iPhone, I do not care about it, I have no need for it, and I do not want it Then don't turn on root mode? Nobody will force you to do anything, if I am given the option of easilu turning on root mode, and you can simply choose to not turn that on.

I’m all for people wanting rootmode, I just don’t want more freedom and choice on my device, I see no need for it and I like the way Apple can streamline everything by forcing everyone to interact with their device on their terms.

And obviously I realize that this doesn’t go for everyone, and that’s completely okay. I just don’t think Apple should be forced to make their phones into full-on computers just because some people say they want the choice, when you could just as easily get a phone. If most customers really wanted to root iPhones Apple would probably have implemented it by now. I don’t believe for a second that Apple’s desire to unilateraly control their ecosystem trumps shareholder greed, why would it?

Not all phones are for everyone and I think that’s OK. More options and more modular devices means everyone will setup and use their device differently, like with a computer, this is fine for many, but I think it would adversly affect the streamlined nature of iOS (even if it is ‘just an option’), so I’m still against it.

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

#618

Post by rmah » Thu, Sep 24, 2020, 7:32 PM UTC

damnyou wrote: post #123

rblatz wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why would you put blockchain in this?

For micropayments per stream, presumably.

Blockchain is not suitable for micropayments. The computing resource requirements are many orders of magnitude too high.

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

#619

Post by temp667 » Thu, Sep 24, 2020, 7:32 PM UTC

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…

The question from a principle standpoint is - can a company create an area where trust / safety / security are prioritized. T

Developers no doubt disagree with this, they have created a web that is filled with crap. Let's be 100% clear about that.

Spam calls via voip, spam into email, ddos floods of every sort imaginable, impossible to unsubscribe, cramming and slamming on subscription renewals and the list goes on. They don't want root on your device to help you, but to screw you in enough cases that you shouldn't give them root. Trust / security / safety are low low low on the list of almost all startup and other developers "growth hacking" etc.

Apple wanted to create their own little world. Phones with updates that keep on getting updated, an app marketplace with much more transparent pricing (lot less fine print), and the list goes on.

You need to look at what apple is doing in context. The world on the net developers and hackers here on HN have created is terrible in many ways for many many people. At some point folks are just tied of the endless scams.

Now the same folks who trashed a lot of the rest of the web (do you answer your phone when an unkown number calls?) want into the walled apple garden.

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

#620

Post by ksk » Thu, Sep 24, 2020, 7:33 PM UTC

spullara wrote: post #409

ksk wrote: post #221

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Its not on the outside of the box, its on the inside. Apple forbids in-app discussion. I wonder what Apple would say if the app had a browser component that directs users to a web-page. These draconian rules are such a clusterF* hope these guys succeed. BTW, all analogies are flawed in some manner or another. If you take away the abstraction, every single one breaks down. And then you end up talking about the intrica…

Their current position protects consumers from being defrauded. I'm all for it.

That is great, you can avoid using app stores you don't trust. Why prevent other users from using stores they trust? Apple isn't the only company that can run an online store. There are countless online web stores selling all kinds of things, and people trust them with their money. Apple is artificially preventing competition in iOS stores here because they can abuse their dominant position.