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

851–860 of 1001 posts

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

#851

Post by pornel »

nickysielicki wrote: post #672
pornel wrote: post #607

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I bought an iPhone, and I'm not getting that 30% cut. Where's my money? Apple wants to get paid twice for the same thing. Apple sells me a device, and then they sell me (a device user) as their product to app developers.

No, you paid for an iPhone and the iPhone ecosystem. You might choose to pay for additional apps, at which point Apple takes 30% for acting as a payment processor and for quality assurance. No double dipping. The iPhone is perfectly usable without any third-party applications. It's your choice to spend more money. The iPhone did not originally have an app store and was still highly sought-after. Apple chose to add an…

Apple already takes $99/year for quality assurance (free-to-user apps get it too).

Apple charges for (in-)app payments literally 10 times more than competing payment processors. Apple bans apps from using competing payment processors.

Apple also bans apps from even informing consumers how much this costs, or that other payment options may be available elsewhere. There's no pro-consumer explanation for forcing opaque pricing and uninformed purchases.

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

#852

Post by nodamage »

belltaco wrote: post #313
bad_user wrote: post #293

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> But freedom to run software is a separate issue. It isn't, because it's tied to security. I don't understand why a company, like Apple, shouldn't be allowed to create locked-down devices. This practice isn't new either. Locked down game consoles have existed since the dawn of computing. What makes this situation special? Don't like it, then don't buy it. Speaking of the situation at hand, Epic did in fact distribut…

Can you explain what blocking services like XCloud and Stadia has to do with security or privacy? Many of the policies are about a pure money grab.

One reason might be related to xCloud bypassing Apple's parental controls for both screen time and in-app purchasing that Apple requires for games distributed via the App Store. I expect Microsoft will work with Apple to resolve these issues and xCloud will be eventually be released in the App Store once they are resolved.

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

#853

Post by TYPE_FASTER »

nodamage wrote: post #832
DeusExMachina wrote: post #757

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Common and reasonable according to which standards? One of the arguments of Epic in court is that Apple set the standard and other stores are simply following it.

That's a pretty silly argument considering Steam launched with a 30% fee a full 5 years before the App Store was even a thing.

Yes. Also see https://www.ign.com/articles/2019/10/07/report-steams-30-cut...

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

#854

Post by nodamage »

dylan-m wrote: post #332
katbyte wrote: post #240

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem is when you let companies run free they do bad things. There are bad actors out there and apples wall garden keeps them at bay and in check. I LIKE not having to worry about what I install from the App Store. Adding random apks or even downloading anything from the play store can legitimately be unsafe. At that I don’t trust companies with credit cards and subscriptions - I trust apple. I get an email for…

> Adding random apks or even downloading anything from the play store can legitimately be unsafe. It has been unsafe, but Android was designed with this in mind and is continually improving its security model. For instance, Android 11 added a regular check-in for permissions you have granted to apps and tightened a bunch of other loose ends like background location access. (In general, barring unpatched security vuln…

Your theory doesn't match the actual statistics:

Among smartphones, Android™ devices are the most commonly targeted by malware. In mobile networks, Android devices were responsible for 47.15% of the observed malware infections, Windows©/ PCs for 35.82%, IoT for 16.17% and iPhones© for less than 1%.

Nokia Threat Intelligence Report (https://onestore.nokia.com/asset/205835)

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

#857

Post by TYPE_FASTER »

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…

> can't get your GPS location without telling Apple, etc.).

I'd rather an iOS app have location listed as a capability in the manifest than have Android send my location to Google for the purpose of selling advertising based on store visits.

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

#858

Post by sneak »

systemvoltage wrote: post #730
sneak wrote: post #676

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Your style of thinking cannot be popular on HN, but we all know why this is good for the consumer - in this day and age, businesses will completely rip apart the consumer in every which way. They'll not miss a chance to fuck the consumer's privacy, financial state, psychology, innocence and addiction. Apple is among the worst offenders here, too. They expressly permit all sorts of embedded spyware in almost every s…

Thanks for providing the source about encrypted backups, that's chilling. Can you provide sources for other claims in your comments? I want to read up more on what sorts things these apps do. Apple is by far the best when it comes to privacy relative to the others. Would you trust Microsoft, Google, or literally any other company (even Canonical Ubuntu) more than Apple?

Microsoft, Google, and Apple are all participants in the PRISM program, which provides data to the US federal government without a warrant (FBI and military intelligence) under the authority they claim via FISA Amendments Act Section 702. Edward Snowden is the reason we know about this.

https://www.eff.org/702-spying

Any data you provide to any of those companies (or any others that have been added in the time since, which presumably includes Dropbox and AWS) that is not end to end encrypted should be considered compromised by the state, or able to be compromised by the state at any time the moment they want to look. (PRISM is not mass surveillance, they specify the accounts they want data for.)

As far as the other apps go, you can watch it yourself. Install the iOS app called Charles Proxy, and you can see all of the hidden connections that apps are making.

Alternately, install NextDNS, and make sure your custom configuration settings (on their setup portal) is set to retain logs for a few hours. You’ll be able to see all of the different hostnames to which your phone connects.

I have stopped using iCloud, and only use Google for YouTube (or corporate/work stuff, for which I have no special desire for privacy from the state). I give my clients the option, though, if they wish to use a different method of collaboration.

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

#859

Post by zaroth »

gpm wrote: post #653
temp667 wrote: post #619

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.…

To keep the continuity of discussion, I assume that this comment was posted here because my top level comment was in part a reply to your (temp667's) comment here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24579860 I appreciate the attempt to connect this to the anti-trust suit, but I don't see this as a good justification for why your original critique is relevant for a few reasons: - Many of the practices in your origin…

Apple does not have a “monopoly on iPhone hardware and iOS”. This is a fundamental misunderstand of the term. You cannot have a monopoly on your own product, because a monopoly is a state of a market and your own product is not a market.

Understanding this is fundamental to the actual legal issue at hand. First, the argument against Apple is not that they are bundling an App Store with their iPhone.

The argument against Apple is that they are restricting behavior that Apps may perform on their Store and also disallowing other stores. If their App Store was downloaded separately but then enforced the same restriction, you have exactly the same legal issue. Implementing the App Store to be a separate manual download, but keeping the same restrictions in place if it is installed, would be just as illegal as exactly what they are doing today.

They would have to at least allow installing multiple App Stores side by side, if not eliminate certain contractural provisions of being able to publish on the Apple App Store itself.

As for why Apple’s curation is bundled with the phone, it’s not a question of whether it “needs to be” that way, it’s a question of why Apple chose to do it that way. They chose that route for a myriad of very significant reasons relating to user experience, usability, privacy, security, safety, brand & reputation, performance, and accountability. From a financial standpoint they chose it because it ensure apps are profitable for both Apple and Developers, as well as consistent and predictable for end users. They also eliminate almost all software piracy on their platform with their model, which increases App Store revenue.

Their model enables HCI, Privacy, and Billing policies which they can enforce platform-wide, and which they can demand otherwise abusive apps to follow, simply because there is no other option if you want access to Apple’s customer base.

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

#860

Post by redwall_hp »

danShumway wrote: post #11

Can we just link directly to the advocacy group's page ( https://appfairness.org/ )? I'm not certain the article is adding anything. ---- I'm generally supportive of at least some of Epic's arguments towards Apple, and I do believe that Apple (and multiple other FAANG companies) are engaged in anti-competitive behavior that's currently hurting the market. But a lot of the arguments I'm reading on the App Fairness sit…

A better argument about user freedom would be:

* The social media companies that had to deal with having their apps blocked because of Apple's puritanical stance on nudity.

* The recent rule change banning vaping and tobacco related apps.

* The inability for FOSS projects to easily distribute to users without paying a $100/year fee for something they want to give away. Users can only acquire it through the app store, or compile themselves and go through an inconvenient signing process to load it on. And I believe that's very temporary.

It's pretty offensive that a company thinks they can dictate what sort of software you run on your own device.

Post reply on HN