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

661–670 of 701 posts

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

#661

Post by rodgerd »

AlexandrB wrote: post #84

From https://appfairness.org/our-vision/ > No app store owner should prohibit third parties from offering competing app stores on the app store owner’s platform, or discourage developers or consumers from using them. I don't disagree but does this mean Sony should allow, for example, Steam to be installed on the PS5? Or is the definition of "App Store" used here narrow and arbitrary?

> Or is the definition of "App Store" used here narrow and arbitrary?

The whole thing is narrow and arbitary in service of the dishonesty of the companies involved. If they care about choice, why is Epic forcing me to install their store to access games on a PC or phone? If they care about consumer choice, why can fans of Joe Rogan no longer access his material without becoming Spotify customers? Why do Epic and Spotify not have the courage to compete on a level playing field?

None of this is aimed at consumer choice. None of the companies have a commitment to that, or I could have downloaded Borderlands 3 for the PC on the same day via Steam, the Epic Game store, or the Windows store. Instead, Epic chose to make it an exclusive to prevent consumer choice.

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

#663

Post by donmcronald »

nodamage wrote: post #639
donmcronald wrote: post #629

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't mind if people want to pay for someone to curate their apps, but I don't see any reason developers shouldn't be able to charge those people +43% for buying through the curated app store. If there's really as much value as everyone claims then users won't have a problem paying extra, right? I also think it's crazy that IAPs are viewed as anything more than a simple payment that would incur normal payment proce…

Framing the 30% as "payment processing" is a fundamentally flawed comparison. Apple builds the entire ecosystem and suite of tools that developers use to actually make apps for the iPhone. Visa and Mastercard only provide payment processing, they don't provide the equivalent of the iOS SDKs, Xcode, the App Store, etc., to their merchants.

I think there's some value in that tooling for building the apps, but for IAPs Apple's not doing anything more than payment processing. There's nothing special or difficult about processing an IAP and there would be a line of competitors around the block to do it for <5% if they were allowed to.

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

#664

Post by hexbinencoded »

Corporations can do whatever they want with regards to limiting speech and throwing people out. Depending on or demanding fairness from corporations is the fundamental problem. If you want fairness, nonprofit hardware and software platforms are the only way out. Unions, petitions, and PACs aren't going to change the profit motives of FAANG/YT.

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

#665

Post by Barrin92 »

mullingitover wrote: post #558
candiddevmike wrote: post #61

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…

> 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…

> I want a locked-down device that keeps developers in check.

That's fine but how does from that statement follow that it's a good idea to let Apple do it to everyone? You don't want things, that's fine, don't get them. Nobody is asking to add anything to the things you already like, ruining them for you. People are asking for freedom of choice.

It's like saying you want to live under permanent surveillance, which you can do, you can have a security company install a camera in every room of your house, but why does that need to apply to the entire city block?

How are you worse off if Apple is required to say, allow third party app stores, which you don't need to touch? In the same vein, why was Firefox ruined for you by addons if you didn't need to install any?

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

#666

Post by diesal11 »

acomjean wrote: post #292
makerofthings wrote: post #247

As a consumer, I really like how the AppStore works and I buy iPhones for me and for my family specifically because there is only one store and one way of subscribing and one way of using in-app purchases. I really, really hope Apple win this. I just don't want to have to deal with the possibility that every app is going to have its own in-app-purchase dark patterns. If everyone that wants to be able to side-load alt…

So you like having only 1 app store for convince. I get that. But there is an legitimate argument to be made by those who do want it. The lack of competition is probably hurting you too, in the form of higher prices for everything. If there were alternatives you wouldn't be forecd to use them. What if apple starts trying to monetize in ways you don't like? (like trying even more aggressively to get appleTV/ AppleMusi…

> If there were alternatives you wouldn't be forecd to use them.

That's just not true. If App Developers choose to only release their app on one store then i am forced to use that store.

Say this Apple loses this battle and are forced to let companies run their own Stores on iOS. What's to stop a company like Facebook moving their suite of apps to exclusively be distributed through their own Store, which conveniently bypasses the App Review process, severely undermining user privacy. If i wanted to keep using these popular apps to communicate with my friends I'd have no choice but to use their alternative Store.

> You are putting a lot of trust in a company that may change its ways. If they change, where are you going to go?

Then I'll switch to Android

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

#668

Post by Teever »

mullingitover wrote: post #599
nwienert wrote: post #567

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 don't like the idea that the government can force you to build things you don't want to build.

Oh but you do. Otherwise you'd choose to live in a country without a food code or electrical code or engineering standards for roads and bridges.

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

#669

Post by RealStickman_ »

diesal11 wrote: post #666
acomjean wrote: post #292

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So you like having only 1 app store for convince. I get that. But there is an legitimate argument to be made by those who do want it. The lack of competition is probably hurting you too, in the form of higher prices for everything. If there were alternatives you wouldn't be forecd to use them. What if apple starts trying to monetize in ways you don't like? (like trying even more aggressively to get appleTV/ AppleMusi…

> If there were alternatives you wouldn't be forecd to use them. That's just not true. If App Developers choose to only release their app on one store then i am forced to use that store. Say this Apple loses this battle and are forced to let companies run their own Stores on iOS. What's to stop a company like Facebook moving their suite of apps to exclusively be distributed through their own Store, which conveniently…

> That's just not true. If App Developers choose to only release their app on one store then i am forced to use that store.

Which store they would use is obviously the developer's decision. Do you complain that you have to go to website X or the Steam Store to get some program instead of the Windows Store as well? Also nobody forces you to use that one app. You don't have a right to use the app, with a possible exception for you having bought the app in the past on that other store.

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

#670

Post by hibikir »

dpratt wrote: post #97
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…

This is a flawed analogy. The correct one would be Cheerios printing "If you buy me at Costco, I cost $1 less" on the outside of the box. No rational retailer that isn't Costco would carry that product.

Your own change to the analogy isn't really all that accurate either: What you are saying would be closer to, saying "This game is cheaper in Android" in the Apple store's product description. I have no idea of what the courts will rule here, but if you are limiting this discussion to whether there's precedent to advertising a store the manufacturer themselves controls, there sure are examples.

This might not be all that popular a plan with Cheerios, but perfectly normal with all kinds of items available at retail stores: For instance, Simple Modern water bottles will come with a discount coupon for buying replacement caps at a discount on the manufacturer's online store. Some printers have, inside the box a leaflet for ink discounts. At least one major vacuum cleaners brand will point you to their website for replacement bags, with an online coupon. Or, back in software, if I buy a Nintendo Switch at GameStop, I will still get ads on menus for buying games online, even though my relationship with Nintendo started at GameStop.

All kinds of retailers carry the products I mentioned, even though there really is far more profit in habituating the customer to buying the consumables in your own store than in the original item. You could argue whether this is good or bad, legal or illegal, but the examples definitely exist.

Post reply on HN