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

921–930 of 1001 posts

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

#921

Post by simion314 »

nodamage wrote: post #823
simion314 wrote: post #756

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 a…

>the store model allows you to disable the app and remove the store listing to prevent further distribution

You do not need a store to blacklist a known bad application, you can have the OS do what OSX is doing now(I read on HN about this, I don't run any newer OSX versions) check an app when it starts against a blacklist.

I agree that a review will catch low level effort of malware and I am not advocating for no official store if is possible users should use applications from the sore or on Linux from the official repositories but if some application is not in the store/repo (maybe you live in one of those countries that ban apps) you can have the option to side load the application.

The statistics for malware on iOS vs Android could be problematic if you don't compare equal user groups, Like a rich kid will buy the games from Steam or Apple store, some poor kid will try to get some free games so IMO we should compare similar population.

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

#922

Post by Razengan »

Ooh are we doing analogies? I’ve got one:

Epic and Tinder are like crocodiles asking for bridges to be torn down so more people will swim through river.

If any one thinks these guys are benign and not doing this for greed... then boy, I really hope you get what you want on Android or PC, but please, don’t loose those crocs into the only platform left in the world where they are not allowed free reign.

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

#923

Post by Razengan »

dybber wrote: post #762
Razengan wrote: post #726

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What about Steam, and why not? What if I don’t want to instal Epic’s store but still play Fortnite? Where is my “user choice”?

Buy a different game from another developer.

Vultour has a good answer.

Practice what you preach man.

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

#924

Post by cafed00d »

stale2002 wrote: post #393
panragon wrote: post #271

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have this discussion nearly daily when talking with Android users. The iPhone is not a modular unit that can be tampered with at all, but despite even being a software developer, I do not actually care about my phone being modular. I want it to work and I want it to work well across the entire platform. Not only does iOS severely limit your options for changing your phone's UX, something a lot of people lament abou…

> Please don't give me root access to my iPhone, I do not care about it, I have no need for it, and I do not want it Then don't turn on root mode? Nobody will force you to do anything, if I am given the option of easilu turning on root mode, and you can simply choose to not turn that on.

I really think we should rename "root mode" to "DANGER 90000 VOLTS AHEAD" or something similar.

Root mode _is_ that dangerous. You wouldn't want to allow astronauts "root access" to their starship launcher; you don't want car drivers to have "root access" to tinker with the brakes in their car. You don't want patients on ventilators to have "root access". You don't want non-doctors to access their health data without a doctor's to walk them through it. Certain pieces of data left to mere mortals can have devastating consequences.

It's not a question of "don't turn on root mode". Or saying "don't re-jigger the brakes".

People (tech experts or otherwise) should not be allowed to mess with systems that can literally end their life by exploding in their pockets! That's how dangerous it is!

Sure, some of the consequences are that you can't tinker with your UI. But honestly, that's a reasonable price to pay because the software that controls the behavior of these systems can cause real-world damage, if not configured properly.

Heck, we've seen this in the recent 40 years. The whole freaking Metric vs Imperial system disagreement has caused unintentional rocketship explosions. Imagine, if some inane argument between a couple of high-schoolers or teenagers led to the same type of bug killing them because their phone exploded. All because someone with root access misconfigures a constants plist file to prove a point!

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

#925

Post by eecc »

TYPE_FASTER wrote: post #833
stefan_ wrote: post #650

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, the rules say organizing a price fixing ring is illegal. The result of which was literally to simultaneously raise prices for consumers across all platforms. It's particularly ironic in this case because the whole point of the exercise for Apple was to increase prices so they could still charge their extortionate 30%. Amazon wasn't remotely that greedy.

Royalties for self publishing an ebook on Amazon top out at 70%. https://kdp.amazon.com/en_US/help/topic/G200644210

Are you suggesting someone other than Apple is making extortionate margins?

/s

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

#926

Post by cafed00d »

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…

Is a car considered a "device"? Would you ride with or let your kids, family or friends get in a taxi that has been "modified" by the driver?

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

#927

Post by Razengan »

bad_good_guy wrote: post #105
sneak wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If users didn’t want these things, users wouldn’t buy them. For the vast majority of people, and iPhone is way, way better than a computer that can run any app, precisely because it can’t run any app they click on. I’m a hacker, so I would love to be able to install any software I want on my iPhone, and introspect it in other ways. Most users, however, would have a way worse experience using their phone if they were…

Its a lot simpler than users wanting a device that 'cant run any app they click on'. The vast vast majority of users don't consider anything except the marketing. And apple is good at marketing. So people want iOS devices.

> The vast vast majority of users don't consider anything except the marketing.

If marketing was all that mattered, and Apple's products were actually disappointing, they would not have repeat customers or high satisfaction after the purchase:

https://www.macrumors.com/2020/09/22/apple-tops-customer-sat...

and please, stop speaking for a "vast vast majority" of people, as if you're an authority on why other people do what they do.

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

#928

Post by return1 »

ghostwriter wrote: post #716
return1 wrote: post #347

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Taxation is theft. That said, i dont see how paying the apple tax for the apps i buy is benefiting me at all, since i'm in Europe.

> That said, i dont see how paying the apple tax for the apps i buy is benefiting me at all, since i'm in Europe. Do you see how VAT benefits you when you pay it when buying almost any product/service (including the ones from Apple) in your country? I agree with your taxation stance though, because taxes are not voluntary. AppStore is, I can either pay for it and use it, or jailbreak it and use it, or walk away to op…

Vatc added at point of sale so in theory there is some benefit.

Apple tax is aptly named because the analogy is good: it s mandatory (though not at gunpoint) , it s proportionate and arbitrary (might make sense if it was only on app sales, but why do they mandate a cut of subscription revenue? What do they offer in return?) and it s just too unjustifiably high

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

#929

Post by Razengan »

notsureaboutpg wrote: post #192
Razengan wrote: post #186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Apple users don't have a choice. It's "popular" because they're forced to use it. Do you have a minute to talk about our Lord and Savior, Android? People do choose iPhones or Androids based on what apps they know they can run.

Very few people do this. most popular apps have a version on both stores.

Very few people care about having alternative app stores on iOS.

In fact, that would actually destroy iOS's advantage over Android, and I suspect that's the exact goal of people aligning with Epic.

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

#930

Post by jariel »

valuearb wrote: post #812
stefan_ wrote: post #650

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, the rules say organizing a price fixing ring is illegal. The result of which was literally to simultaneously raise prices for consumers across all platforms. It's particularly ironic in this case because the whole point of the exercise for Apple was to increase prices so they could still charge their extortionate 30%. Amazon wasn't remotely that greedy.

That’s the silliest perspective on this case you could have. Apple gave publishers the right to set their own prices, but in return required they don’t undercut those prices on other platforms. Apple had only a a small market share at the time. Publishers could have said, nah, we are happy with Amazon, and refused to agree to Apple’s terms. This is about as clear a free market as one gets, that it became an antitrust…

"This is about as clear a free market as one gets, that it became an antitrust issue shows how crazytown antitrust law has become."

It has nothing to do with platform prix fixing, it has to do with de-facto monopoly over a portion of US mobile devices, or rather, an oligarchy between Google and Apple.

The same issues existed with oil, electricity and telephone networks - there were claims of 'choice' but really there was not.

Post reply on HN