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

821–830 of 1001 posts

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

#821

Post by sweezyjeezy »

wcr3 wrote: post #680
sweezyjeezy wrote: post #634

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do their motivations invalidate the argument?

"does the fact that mr. crocodile eats small, flightless birds invalidate his argument that he can get me (a small, flightless bird) across the river faster than i could do so alone?"

I didn't say 'show me an example of how motivations can invalidate an argument', I am talking about this particular example - how does Epic et al's desire to make money invalidate their argument that Apple has a anti-competitive monopoly on the app store?

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

#822

Post by alkonaut »

seneca wrote: post #743
alkonaut wrote: post #736

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Free speech is the right to not be arrested for speaking. It's not the right to not be punched in the face for saying stupid things (there is a separate law for face punching).

> Free speech is the right to not be arrested for speaking. It's not the right to not be punched in the face for saying stupid things (there is a separate law for face punching). No, the 1st Amendment is the right to not be arrested for speaking (in the United States). Free Speech is a philosophy that would absolutely cover not committing physical violence against someone for what they say. Violence in response to sp…

Yes, the reason we have laws against face punching people who say dumb things is partly to protect free speech in the philosophical sense (there are obviously other reasons too, such as that it hurts).

This still doesn’t mean that speech without consequences is possible. The grandparent comment mentioned the loss of a livelihood as an example (unsure exactly what it refers to but could be e.g boycotts).

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

#823

Post by nodamage »

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…

> If I am a bad actor I can submit an app for review and activate an evil mode after the application is approved.

While this is of course still possible, the store model allows you to disable the app and remove the store listing to prevent further distribution of the bad app. You would be giving this up ability if you allowed third-party distribution. The fact that review is necessary in the first place also serves as a deterrent, and if a bad actor is caught their developer account can be banned to prevent them from submitting any more apps.

> Maybe we can stop pretending that the lock is in place to protect the users

Not sure why you think this is a pretense. In 2019, Android devices were responsible for 47.15% of malware infections compared to 0.85% of iPhones (https://onestore.nokia.com/asset/205835). There is a clear security benefit to the locked-down store model.

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

#824

Post by zepto »

donmcronald wrote: post #819
zepto wrote: post #632

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nothing I said is false. Third party stores will not exist equitably on iOS and Android because there don’t exist equitably anywhere else. I said a small group, not just Epic. That group would be made up of the usual suspects - Epic, Amazon, Google, Facebook, various other TenCent properties etc. Nothing about it would make it either developer friendly, nor consumer friendly.

> Nothing about it would make it either developer friendly, nor consumer friendly. That doesn't sound too bad to me from either side TBH. As a developer, it would be useful to have a choice between multiple publishers with the advantage of only needing to deal with one at a time instead of three. I also think competition in app stores would spur a bunch of innovation. As a consumer with an Android phone, a Windows PC…

I don’t see what would allow developers to only deal with one publisher at a time.

If each one commands a significant percentage of user attention, you’ll have to deal with them all.

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

#825

Post by donmcronald »

matwood wrote: post #725
zepto wrote: post #682

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Having to deal with multiple stores would be strictly worse for developers than the current situation.

And worse for consumers. No way I'm dealing with entering my CC again and again. The current situation is not perfect, but it does have advantages for both consumers and developers.

Really?

Microsoft, Amazon, Google, and Apple already have my CC number. If I could buy all my apps through (ex:) the Microsoft store that exists on PC, Android, and iOS I could delete my CC info from Google and Apple. That's a win in my book.

Maybe the competition would force all of them to innovate a bit. Wouldn't it be nice if you could give your CC number, but set a hard limit on in-app purchases? Ex: Here's my CC, but you're not allowed to charge more than $50 / month to it. I bet there are a lot of people that have gotten multi thousand dollar IAP bills that wouldn't mind a better system for some of that stuff.

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

#826

Post by zepto »

lern_too_spel wrote: post #786
zepto wrote: post #721

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is clearly not true. If it were, developers and consumers would prioritize Android.

As a developer and a user, I do prioritize Android. People don't buy luxury jeans because they are better jeans than Levi's. People buy luxury jeans because of marketing. The same applies here. Consider how many people in the HN comments say they like iPhone because of privacy even though it is so clearly worse for privacy (can't install an app on your device without telling Apple, can't get your GPS location without…

Privacy is better on iOS because it’s not about what goes to Apple - it’s about what goes to 3rd parties.

Also you seem to be just wrong. iOS doesn’t inform Apple when apps make GPS location requests.

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

#827

Post by zepto »

lern_too_spel wrote: post #785
zepto wrote: post #723

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is no evidence that what they are fighting for would benefit anyone other than a small group of already rich companies.

There is plenty of evidence from Android that it would benefit both users and developers.

Android is not a model for this. Stores on Android simply don’t have equal footing with the play store.

Epic is suing Google too over this.

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

#828

Post by donmcronald »

zepto wrote: post #522
kodablah wrote: post #493

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> They want to be part of a small exclusive group of store owners who get to share in the benefits of Apple’s investments. Exclusive? Why can't I write an app store?

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.

IMHO there would be a large market for local stores that promote local apps. It would usher in an era of local discovery and decentralization. I think it would be a huge win for everyone except companies abusing the monopoly like characteristics of demand aggregation.

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

#829

Post by zepto »

Apocryphon wrote: post #733
zepto wrote: post #728

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think this confirms my point. Note that as per Epic’s other lawsuit, the Amazon App Store is working at a severe disadvantage to Google Play.

It refutes your claim that developers will end up having to support alternate app stores or risk losing on market share. Despite the potential for greater revenue on the Amazon Appstore, developers don't seem to be flocking to it. People seem to be buying into Epic's own claims of self-importance. They may be the ones to have finally advanced grievances against the App Store to the lawsuit, but they do not- nor shoul…

It doesn’t really refute my claim. For one thing for most developer, Android is an afterthought in terms of profitability because of iOS, and for another, secondary app stores don’t function on an equal footing with the play store, which is why Epic is also suing Google.

Android just isn’t a model for what would happen on iOS. Obvious really, because Android has never had anything like the same success in app sales.

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

#830

Post by mthoms »

threeseed wrote: post #690
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…

Note that I can do all of that with my Sony TV. And this idea that a smartphone is a necessity is ridiculous given that most of the world doesn't have one.

Most of the world doesn't have toilets, running water or democratically elected governments either. But in the west those are still considered "necessities".

I'm not equating the need for a smartphone with the above things, of course. The point is that "necessity" in this context is relative to those you compete with, and is not a binary black or white. It's a scale of grey.

In my opinion, having an informed, engaged, educated, and well connected populace is indeed a necessity. The smartphone (+ the internet) facilitates that better than any invention since the printing press IMHO.

Post reply on HN