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

#791

Post by mthoms » Thu, Sep 24, 2020, 10:11 PM UTC

jVinc wrote: post #719

mthoms wrote: post #237

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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…

> But the smartphone has grown beyond a simple "nice-to-have" utility. Lets frame the discussion accordingly indeed. Not all gaming machines are consoles and not all smartphones are iPhones. Why should we prevent Sony from providing a console just because the PC is much more than a nice-to-have utility and their console competes with PC's? Apple is not a monopoly, and they are not even the majority of smart phones. W…

I don't follow what point you're making. I mentioned nothing about monopolies, disallowing anyone from making a phone or console(?), nor Apple specifically. My comment was about smartphones in general.

It's pretty simple. Gaming consoles are primarily (almost exclusively) for entertainment.

Smartphones are for accessing information, essential services (ie. banking), directions, forecasts, and news. They also facilitate communicating with family, friends, business associates, emergency services and in many cases the government itself. Oh, they also contain our most intimate thoughts, plans, ideas and memories.

It's not even comparable. At all.

>I don't particularly like Pepsi, and rather enjoy coka cola, but I'm not going to go out on a mad rager ...

Absolutely terrible analogy. How about instead you were denied the right to own a smartphone? But were told it's okay because hey, you have a console! It's a perfect substitute!

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

#792

Post by rimliu » Thu, Sep 24, 2020, 10:13 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…

The common misconception of HN crowd: assumption that everyone are like them and actually want complete control. There is a nontrivial cost to having that control and not many actually want it. They want something that works and is useable.

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

#793

Post by nodamage » Thu, Sep 24, 2020, 10:13 PM UTC

strictnein wrote: post #450

electriclove wrote: post #3

Apple built their controlled ecosystem and set their rules. And now others are insisting that Apple should not have that control (even when they themselves are doing the same thing).

"Standard Oil built their ecosystem and set their rules." "AT&T built their ecosystem and set their rules."

Ok now compare the iPhone's market share to Standard Oil and AT&T's market share at the time of their breakup. One of these things is not like the others.

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

#794

Post by ratww » Thu, Sep 24, 2020, 10:14 PM UTC

freedomben wrote: post #685

shagie wrote: post #551

Earlier quoted context omitted.

(supporting this point) You can see this sort of thing in an old post by Joel on https://www.joelonsoftware.com/2004/06/13/how-microsoft-lost... This references an even older blog post (that has been lost to time) which was quoted: > Look at the scenario from the customer’s standpoint. You bought programs X, Y and Z. You then upgraded to Windows XP. Your computer now crashes randomly, and program Z doesn’t work at al…

I appreciate the dialog. I'm still struggling with it though and I'm wondering if we have different premises. This seems like it assumes that users are complete buffoons, and aren't capable of understanding a simple message like, "if you enable this feature, you open yourself up to possible security holes. Apple also makes no guarantees that software installed in this way will work, either now or in the future." At a…

But it's not just users that have this behavior. There was major outcry from some developers about Apple removing Carbon even after 12 years of deprecation and no updates. There was a lot of support from developer-centric community like HN. An example: [1]

Considering that even developers are not too understanding, it's no wonder people assume non-tech people will react the same way.

I really don't see a good solution for that. Even if Apple open sourced Carbon, I doubt Carbon users would be able pick up the slack, since they had 12 years to update but couldn't (or 20 if you consider Carbon was always marketed as a stopgap/compatibility solution).

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21164005

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

#795

Post by n_ » Thu, Sep 24, 2020, 10:15 PM UTC

nodamage wrote: post #771

n_ wrote: post #764

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…

> 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? You are allowed to do the former but not the latter.

I think that’s where I have a problem with the policy.

I’d specify though, that it makes sense Apple would not allow developers to make the signup via web a work around, just to avoid paying Apple and still use my service through iOS.

However, if I block access to my service from native iOS apps until a user agrees to pay the 30% extra, that feels fair and still follows the spirit of the rules IMO.

Not letting me tell users what they are paying for, or why they can’t access my service on iOS until they cough up an extra 30%, that’s overreach.

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

#796

Post by simion314 » Thu, Sep 24, 2020, 10:16 PM UTC

yazaddaruvala wrote: post #694

simion314 wrote: post #509

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I understand your point but we don't even know if the number of this users that need protecting is even 10%. This imaginary group of people must have this properties: - they are gullible , so bad people can trick them to ignore OS security warnings,create some extra account or security key to unlock the device (Apple can do it hard enough it must not be just 1 click) - at the same time this users are not that gullibl…

> they are gullible , so bad people can trick them to ignore OS security warnings > For me if I intersect all this sets of users I get void I work at a pretty big company, where we are trusted to make a lot of important decisions but as I understand it even small companies have trainings to identify "phishing, clickbait, social engineering, etc". Every relatively big company also pre-approves devices that can connect…

The issues you describe are happening on computers where by default there is no sandbox, so an evil game or a bad application can do a lot of damage. But in an OS with strong sandbox and a good permission model the fact you add a dude to review your app does not add some extra security, from what I see this review people will check to make sure you follow the GUI /UX guidelines and also make sure you don't give the users information Apple won't like (like you could buy this cheaper from this webpage)

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

#797

Post by lewdev » Thu, Sep 24, 2020, 10:18 PM UTC

indigochill wrote: post #27

doublerabbit wrote: post #2

"The Coalition for App Fairness", I cannot not laugh. On the stage you have: Epic - Trying to be the next Valve/Steam. Happy to rip off their customers via in-game transactions. Spotify - Who rip off artists by either failing or paying very little in royalties. Tinder - Sells sex. None of these companies have any care for the actual developer; who are the folk trying to make a living from their creations.

I agree Epic's arguing in bad faith, but I also don't see why Apple (and other App Store companies, like Google) need to have change legislated upon them (or why this is something that needs to be protested). Apple got to where they are by being a successful platform that attracted users and developers with their walled garden ethos. If in fact that walled garden is bad for users/developers, then there are competitor…

"walled garden ethos" I like that. Apple is all about exclusivity and premium priced products. It seems like developers develop for them and consumers buy for them for that reason. But expecting Apple to be a free, fair, and open company, is really going against their business model.

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

#798

Post by shagie » Thu, Sep 24, 2020, 10:18 PM UTC

freedomben wrote: post #685

shagie wrote: post #551

Earlier quoted context omitted.

(supporting this point) You can see this sort of thing in an old post by Joel on https://www.joelonsoftware.com/2004/06/13/how-microsoft-lost... This references an even older blog post (that has been lost to time) which was quoted: > Look at the scenario from the customer’s standpoint. You bought programs X, Y and Z. You then upgraded to Windows XP. Your computer now crashes randomly, and program Z doesn’t work at al…

I appreciate the dialog. I'm still struggling with it though and I'm wondering if we have different premises. This seems like it assumes that users are complete buffoons, and aren't capable of understanding a simple message like, "if you enable this feature, you open yourself up to possible security holes. Apple also makes no guarantees that software installed in this way will work, either now or in the future." At a…

I used to work tech support at a big tech company. I have little faith in the technical literacy of people outside of those who have specifically studied the issue and done an informed risk analysis on what they want to do.

I feel (especially in today's world) that people are too willing to accept risks that put themselves and others in danger without being informed of the implications or that they maintain a "yea, it will never happen to me" attitude.

That willingness to take risks is especially prevalent in younger demographics. With respect to fortnight when Epic was doing a "disable this check and load from another site" there were numerous copies of the software with malware installed because people were ignoring the risk and looking at what they have. https://www.theguardian.com/games/2018/aug/10/fortnite-on-an...

If you are a power user, and want those features, jailbreaking the phone and doing whatever you want to it is an option. Or maybe, not using an iDevice and going with something that is more open.

There are a lot more people out there that want the training wheels on their technology experience than there are power users.

Personally, after having a linux system that I built myself and compiled kernel patches for back in the day - I'm glad I have the experience and I'm quite happy to let Apple do that now and not have to spend time on that level of verification of software and administration of my own devices.

On the phone itself - I've got lots of personal information, credit cards tied into NFC, email, and IoT controls. And while I'm not going to take risky actions with my phone, I am confident that others will take those risks. As part of Apple's brand identity is privacy and security - allowing people to take those risks works against that brand identity.

One of the frequent comments on HN in the past is "HN may not be the targeted demographic."

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

#799

Post by mthoms » Thu, Sep 24, 2020, 10:18 PM UTC

bhupy wrote: post #499

mthoms wrote: post #237

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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 mark…

My comment was not about a particular company, nor was it advocating for any specific policy. It was merely illustrating why equating smartphones with consoles is foolish and lazy.

>Basing policy on the current ephemeral norms rather than consistently applied principles seems ill-advised.

I agree. What "consistently applied principle" did you interpret my comment to be against?

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

#800

Post by nodamage » Thu, Sep 24, 2020, 10:21 PM UTC

onion2k wrote: post #52

dleslie wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Apple clearly has competitors that have a much larger share of the market.

When people talk about Apple having a monopoly they're referring to Apple having complete control over the sale of iOS software. There is no one else in that market. Apple has 100% market share.

Sorry but a market consisting of a single manufacturer's own product is generally not considered a valid antitrust market for legal purposes. You can't simply declare an arbitrarily narrow market like this because every manufacturer would then have a monopoly over its own products.