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

#641

Post by mattnewton » Thu, Sep 24, 2020, 7:53 PM UTC

lotsofpulp wrote: post #625

mardifoufs wrote: post #590

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Im curious, how is life insurance a scam? Yes investing the money is probably better, but insurance is a hedge against the risk of not having saved enough because of an early death. I'm not familiar with the life insurance industry though, so I'm maybe missing something!

Insurance is for minimizing losses you can't afford. Term life insurance is good if you have dependents and their life would be negatively impacted by the loss of your income. There is very little profit and commission in term life insurance, so life insurance salesmen will push whole life. Whole life insurance is rarely necessary, and extremely expensive compared to the alternatives. See links below. https://www.whi…

Also it's used as a part of a strategy to hide money from taxes in a term policy, where you can later "borrow" against your premiums to pull your money out later in a lower tax situation. That seems to be the main purpose of large life insurance policies I have seen among wealthy people.

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

#642

Post by actuator » Thu, Sep 24, 2020, 7:53 PM UTC

cwhiz wrote: post #496

actuator wrote: post #471

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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. >Appl…

> How is iOS fundamentally different from the Xbox OS?

If I have to explain in brief, because the intended use for it is to be a multipurpose OS just how Windows/OS X were. Xbox OS is about games and media streaming, while iOS/Android in addition to what Xbox OS does are about image editing, word processing, managing email, browsing web and much more. They are the spiritual successors to the laptop/desktop OSs.

Platforms like these have an immense amount of power as they interface with plethora of devices and services. From a waiter taking order on his phone to a project manager leaving notes on docs on the go. The sheer amount of use cases for these platforms are huge. They inherit and expand the ecosystems that PCs had, there is trillions of dollars of value there for software and hardware makers. The ecosystem should not get consolidated in the hands of few companies.

> 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.

I think we are going around in circles on this. Even 14% worldwide is significant enough for me to ask for regulation but the right number to look at is, app revenue generated. I gave the example of Hey already, it is not that lopsided for everyone but it is significant. As a company, you can't afford to leave that aside.

> WatchOS allowed third party streaming several years ago

That is just one integration. It gets to be the first and even sole one on many other occasions.

> but is no more fair or unfair than Google offering a music service, which they do.

Google allows you to bypass this. Apple acting like a hypocrite even makes use of this. [1]

> I believe this line of reasoning would forbid Epic from exclusively selling cars in Rocket League,

You are again going for weird analogies. I have explained the rationale in this comment and the comments before.

> If I don't like the Apple platform I can go to a competitor and support them instead.

Except for Macbooks, that's what I did. I am not talking about my choice as an end user here, I am talking about my choice as a developer. If 50% of my revenue is from iOS, I really can't afford to not be there.

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23564247

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

#643

Post by pb7 » Thu, Sep 24, 2020, 7:53 PM UTC

sweezyjeezy wrote: post #634

pb7 wrote: post #602

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Do their motivations invalidate the argument?

Absolutely. I like the status quo and I'm not eager to find out what my new world will be like when the companies signaling that they don't really care about consumers have the power instead of Apple.

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

#644

Post by spideymans » Thu, Sep 24, 2020, 7:55 PM UTC

temp667 wrote: post #619

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.…

>Trust / security / safety are low low low on the list of almost all startup and other developers "growth hacking" etc.

Yeah I find this general argument that developers should be "trusted" with the "freedom" of an "open" ecosystem, with all those happy buzzwords, so off-putting. I mean, sure, I might perhaps trust the small indie developer working out of his basement to not screw me over, but by and large the software that end users are interacting with are coming out of faceless billion dollar behemoths looking to squeeze every dollar out of their users (and associated data) as possible. I have zero reason to trust them, particularly given the conduct of the Internet giants (ahem... Facebook).

Perhaps if these businesses had a more user-friendly business model, end users would've been comfortable using a less restrictive mobile software platforms, similar to what we used to have on desktop computers. Facebook et all have reaped what they sowed, and they get zero sympathy from me regarding their App Store situation. They're the reason that users (even on HN) generally celebrate when Apple imposes an ever growing list of privacy restrictions on their activities.

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

#645

Post by mrguyorama » Thu, Sep 24, 2020, 7:55 PM UTC

fanatic2pope wrote: post #623

nicetryguy wrote: post #75

I'm surprised at all of the negativity here. The changes proposed would be great for developers, even if (most) of the companies involved are shady, their reasons are selfish, and the obvious "astroturfiness" of the website is laughably dissonant and reeks like a dirty think tank that hasn't been cleaned in months. Apple has no qualms about absolutely screwing developers historically. I'm happy to see some pushback.

Support for Epic never took root on HN because techno-entrepreneurs see themselves not as mere fart app developers but as temporarily embarrassed billionaire monopolists.

I support opening up Apple's ecosystem, but I don't support Epic. They say they want to give user's the freedom to choose, yet they took a video game I purchased away from my chosen storefront (rocket league being taken off of steam)

Where's my user choice Epic?

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

#646

Post by bogwog » Thu, Sep 24, 2020, 7:55 PM UTC

zepto wrote: post #635

bogwog wrote: post #608

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Almost no stores will be able to compete with Facebook, Google, Amazon, etc, who already have giant reach and network effects, Consumers will have to deal with them all, as will developers. There will be a small group of store owners.

> Almost no stores will be able to compete with Facebook, Google, Amazon, etc, who already have giant reach and network effects,

First of all, that is not true at all.

And second, even if it were true, it'd be a far better situation for developers than the current status quo.

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

#647

Post by zepto » Thu, Sep 24, 2020, 7:55 PM UTC

bogwog wrote: post #624

zepto wrote: post #529

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Being forced to sell on multiple stores and comply with multiple sets of store rules just to access the same set of consumers is a massive disadvantage. There will be greater risks. It’s conceivable that fees will be a little lower, but this will only benefit larger developers who can absorb the increased costs of dealing with all the stores. It will be nothing but destructive for smaller developers.

There is so much wrong with everything you're saying, but I am not going to spend the time to point it all out, especially since you seem to have thoroughly convinced yourself that these assumptions are true. But I'll just point this out: > sell on multiple stores and comply with multiple sets of store rules just to access the same set of consumers is a massive disadvantage. The only way this might be a problem is if…

This makes no sense.

If you are a new app developer and there was just one additional store, which had just 15% of user attention, you’d have to support it or lose 15% of potential revenue.

This is more than likely as Facebook would almost certainly start selling apps directly through the feed.

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

#648

Post by sneak » Thu, Sep 24, 2020, 7:56 PM UTC

headmelted wrote: post #631

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…

Wrong. Completely. The vast majority of people you're talking about don't realise they're having their prices jacked up with taxes or their options curtailed by Apple. They just assume the App Store is where you get the apps because it's been programmed into them over the last 12 years. Allowing third party app stores doesn't change the API or permissions system already baked into the OS. If Epic wants to start an Ap…

> Allowing third party app stores doesn't change the API or permissions system already baked into the OS.

It does precisely that. Apple invests huge amounts of money into people and infrastructure to ensure that exploit code (that can subvert platform security) never makes it into the store or gets signed by Apple. If it does, they can immediately revoke it.

Third parties providing app downloads would not invest the anywhere near same level of care, for the most part. Platform security can only do so much if you can run any code you want to try to attack it.

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

#649

Post by FreeFull » Thu, Sep 24, 2020, 7:56 PM UTC

abc-xyz wrote: post #610

FreeFull wrote: post #592

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

From what I've seen, the majority of Android malware either comes from Google's Play Store, or gets included on the phones by certain OEMs. F-droid in particular, due to its open source requirement, hasn't ended up hosting any malware so far.

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

#650

Post by stefan_ » Thu, Sep 24, 2020, 7:57 PM UTC

marbletiles wrote: post #552

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 wider context around the specific issues can still be useful in deciding what's "best" (distinct from "right"). EG: look at the antitrust case Apple lost over eBook pricing. The rules said they should lose in order to ensure a fair market for eBooks, a minute's consideration of the wider context said that if they lost Amazon would suck up the entire market. Which it did. The net result, even if narrowly within th…

No, the rules say organizing a price fixing ring is illegal. The result of which was literally to simultaneously raise prices for consumers across all platforms.

It's particularly ironic in this case because the whole point of the exercise for Apple was to increase prices so they could still charge their extortionate 30%. Amazon wasn't remotely that greedy.