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

801–810 of 1001 posts

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

#801

Post by yazaddaruvala »

simion314 wrote: post #756
yazaddaruvala wrote: post #746

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're right! I disagree that the perfectly balanced system is OSX but overall I agree iPhones should have better "hack-ability". As I've posted elsewhere: I agree, Apple should make it easier to boot non-iOS iPhones. Even provide some tools to write custom OSes for the iPhone hardware. However, Apple should only provide that service to the registered adult owner of the device, in person at an Apple store after deliv…

Can you think of what a bad application can do to a user when side loading but is impossible to do when Apple reviews it, If I am a bad actor I can submit an app for review and activate an evil mode after the application is approved. Maybe we can stop pretending that the lock is in place to protect the users, most Android users do not root their devices or install random evil applications and then complain to Google…

Sure totally!

With sideloading allowed, an application/appstore that is actually a trojan horse could request permissions once to "download X" where X is innocuous. Later the trojan auto-downloads other applications to your phone to mine bitcoin, run a bot net, etc. Basically selling your hardware, bandwidth and battery life to the highest bidder.

With sideloading, alternate APIs could be scraped together into a "new std lib". These APIs would just be some C/asm lib that is a part of any application and accesses hardware without any permission management. At that point every possible bad thing can happen. "Sandbox it!" sure... but that is what Apple is currently doing... its just also auditing source code to ensure no one is maliciously trying to break out of the sandbox. With enough time, people will break the sandbox or people will complain the sandbox is too limiting and not "true sideloading".

All this said, is Apple's auditing system a 100% guarantee? No. But at least I know once the bug/issue is found Apple will close the hole. Meanwhile, its in a company like FB or GOOG's best interest to force ever more tracking onto users, and they know people will continue to use their services regardless of the complaints (like what happens today).

You might argue, "this is where government should step in". I agree! The problem is that the government isn't doing a good enough job protecting users from digital abuse (arguably might make it worse with weaker encryption). So in the meanwhile, I'm happy that at least Apple currently is trying to protect users.

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

#802

Post by graeme »

grawprog wrote: post #365
graeme wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Indeed, what is the cheerios example supposed to show? I don’t expect the discount coupon comes out of the store’s cut. Tinder or Epic are free to discount boosts or in game purchases, and spotify can give free months. The cheerios example probably involves a fair bit of negotiation between manufacturer and retailer. Whereas apps can discount whenever they choose, without permission.

> I don’t expect the discount coupon comes out of the store’s cut. That's how it used to work at the grocery store I worked at. The flyers were prepared a couple weeks in advance, the sales matched up with every other store that ordered food from loblaws, it was ordered down from loblaws to the stores that carry the products they ship and sell what things would be on sale on any given week throughout all the stores.…

Those are loblaws sales. The argument was instead talking about those little coupons you can clip out of cardboard in the boxes.

So like you physically cut up the cheerios box and can get 50 cents off cheerios at participating retailers.

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

#804

Post by bhupy »

mthoms wrote: post #799
bhupy wrote: post #499

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

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

The principle that would be applied when considering game consoles. In other words, it's not "foolish" or "lazy", rather it is what consistently applying a principle looks like in practice. The perceived difference between user behavior or criticality on big glass app-based smartphones vs consoles is ephemeral.

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

#805

Post by threeseed »

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…

Apps will simply require users to enable this "unlock device" setting.

And people just do whatever the app says since they assume Apple has vetted it.

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

#806

Post by mthoms »

sugarpile wrote: post #691
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…

It’s interesting you bring up disabilities since forcing apple to open up to other app stores will likely harm accessibility. Accessibility on iOS is second to none. I be surprised if many disabled users were in the “open up iOS” camp.

I agree actually. This is indeed a great argument for Apple's approach.

FYI, I'm not necessarily in the "open up IOS" camp. In my comment above I'm only claiming to be in the "equating smartphones with consoles is lazy" camp :-)

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

#808

Post by madrox »

mullingitover wrote: post #784
nwienert wrote: post #735

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> The same applies for if the government said “you have a right to install apps of your choice”. I don't like the idea that the government can force you to build things you don't want to build. If I don't want to build a general purpose computing device, why should the government be able to force me to? There's a compelling argument for requiring building in handicapped-accessible features, but that is relevant to th…

I think that was an analogy where Apple was the government

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

#809

Post by dml2135 »

mullingitover wrote: post #784
nwienert wrote: post #735

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> The same applies for if the government said “you have a right to install apps of your choice”. I don't like the idea that the government can force you to build things you don't want to build. If I don't want to build a general purpose computing device, why should the government be able to force me to? There's a compelling argument for requiring building in handicapped-accessible features, but that is relevant to th…

I may be mistaken, but I'm pretty sure it is relevant to the Americans with Disabilities Act, not the Constitution.

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

#810

Post by ratww »

shagie wrote: post #798
freedomben wrote: post #685

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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, i…

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

I saw a similar comment here before that made sense to me: "The more Apple distanced itself from power users, the more money they made".

Post reply on HN