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

761–770 of 1001 posts

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

#761

Post by headmelted »

sneak wrote: post #648
headmelted wrote: post #631

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

But you cant run any code you want. You’re still in a restrictive sandbox, and you still need to explicitly request the limited expansions to the permissions scope that the OS allows the user to grant you - neither of which is dependent on the App Store.

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

#762

Post by dybber »

Razengan wrote: post #726
hnra wrote: post #705

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Do you think Fortnite will be available on competing stores? The play store seems to indicate this to be the case. Epic released Fortnite on both their own store, and the play store no?

What about Steam, and why not? What if I don’t want to instal Epic’s store but still play Fortnite? Where is my “user choice”?

Buy a different game from another developer.

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

#763

Post by can16358p »

Don't want to pay 30%? Don't develop for the platform then. I really think all these guys trying to change a company's own ecosystem's rules that the company itself created, are paid actors. I haven't seen a more flawed argument then knowing the exact rules of the ecosystem, which is owned by a company, and trying to change it. It's their company, their platform, their rules. It's been the same way since the beginning. Get over it. Simple as that.

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

#764

Post by n_ »

Does Apple allow developers to just charge 30% more when users sign up through iOS, and just note in the app that access to the service though iOS costs more?

Seems fair to me, and let’s consumers know where the money is going (to Apple, presumably to pay for ecosystem things like app privacy and security reviews, billing, etc).

If users don’t like it, then the market will do it’s thing right?

It’s unclear to me what types of messaging Apple bans developers from adding though. Like is it ok with Apple for me to build an app available on web for a certain price, but block access via native iOS apps unless the user agrees to a 30% increase to cover the Apple tax?

I think this is what I would want to do if I operated a subscription service available via native app in the app store.

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

#765

Post by javier2 »

tshaddox wrote: post #451
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…

> 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. I'm precisely in this boat. I enjoy playing with electronics, but I want my microwave to just work. I also enjoy fiddling around with PCs with total freedom, but I want my phone to…

I am also a developer, I love tinkering, but my router and especially my phone, I want it to just work. I need my phone, if I could tinker with my phone it would be broken half the time!

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

#766

Post by abc-xyz »

FreeFull wrote: post #649
abc-xyz wrote: post #610

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

F-Droid is even more locked down than the App Store, and even if they turned it into the default app store then Android would still be riddled with malware.

As to how the Android users keep acquiring malware, I have no idea whether it’s from the Play Store, or if they download free apk files of paid apps, or if they download it through ads or from emails or whatever. I just know I have to help fix them regularly, and if iOS is forced to open up then iPhones will suffer from the same malware issues that you see with OSX/Windows/Android.

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

#767

Post by Apocryphon »

threeseed wrote: post #693
Apocryphon wrote: post #439

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Apple seems to be portraying them as (potentially) life-saving technologies, for one thing https://www.macrumors.com/2018/12/06/apple-watch-real-storie...

That article is referring to the Apple Watch.

Sure- a device that relies on iOS and iPhones (for now) to operate.

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

#768

Post by kstrauser »

damnyou wrote: post #117
jakelazaroff wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A free market is mutually exclusive with a ban on closed ecosystems. You are arguing against a free market.

You are talking past each other. Markets can be free in principle but not in practice for various reasons (oligopolies, monopsonies, etc).

I think you're right. Although I'm with Apple on this one, in other contexts I've made the argument that I want my markets free as in GPL, not free as in BSD. That is, I want the market itself to be free, even if that means its participants have some restrictions.

Actually, in this case I guess that means I like the restrictions that Apple's app store places on developers. Sure, lose the ability to publish malware and other profitable things, but that protects my ability to use it peacefully.

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

#769

Post by lucisferre »

RonanTheGrey wrote: post #633
mercurysmessage wrote: post #605

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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.

Depends on the consequences. Usually this is invoked to mean "it's fine for me burn down your business or destroy your life because I don't like you because consequences " In general, the statement CANNOT be true, because the chilling effect explicitly suppresses free speech -- being a result of consequences. Ergo, consequence (of a particular type) is in fact suppression of free speech.

> Usually this is invoked to mean "it's fine for me burn down your business or destroy your life because I don't like you because consequences "

What a ridiculous hyperbole of what it "usually" means.

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

#770

Post by auggierose »

nwienert wrote: post #735
mullingitover wrote: post #722

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Device freedom is a must. Any device should be completely controllable by the end user. I have the choice of buying a completely controllable android device if I want to install mystery apps willy-nilly. I'm not interested in that, and there are millions like me. I want a locked-down device that keeps developers in check. This situation is much like the browser nightmares of the past, where Firefox users complained…

So, let’s apply this same logic to accessibility. Let’s say the government says “devices must have voice over functionality”. Ok, great. Apple puts that as an option, and we’re done. The same applies for if the government said “you have a right to install apps of your choice”. Apple adds a setting in the settings menu. You still get your locked down device by default, and much like blind people, people who care about…

you cannot apply the same logic to something entirely different
Post reply on HN