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

941–950 of 1001 posts

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

#941

Post by nodamage »

simion314 wrote: post #921
nodamage wrote: post #823

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 off…

Blacklisting may be an appropriate solution for malware but doesn't help with privacy issues because apps distributed outside the App Store by definition won't be subject to the App Store privacy rules.

> 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.

Even within the Android platform Google has reported an 8x difference in malware between devices that use side-loading compared to devices that use only the Google Play Store (https://source.android.com/security/reports/Google_Android_S...). In other words, it is specifically side-loading and third-party app stores that cause the biggest problem.

We've already seen this same story play out on Windows. Why would we expect it to be any different here?

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

#942

Post by aurbano »

tomcatfish wrote: post #571
lotsofpulp wrote: post #344

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My experience is analogies are erroneously as supporting arguments to jump from premise to conclusion of an unrelated topic. I saw them a lot at my family's various religious/cult gatherings when I was a kid. The preacher would state something and then "prove" it with an analogy. Analogies don't accomplish anything in basically all of the uses I've seen. People want them to serve as proof, but it's a lazy way of gett…

I'd like to try to change your mind on analogies, and even without analogies (although I _will_ use an example)! Analogies are an attempt to generalize an argument. Say we are trying to prove that "It will rain" is a valid conclusion from "If it is cloudy it will rain and it is cloudy". We can generalize this to "A -> B" & "B" -> "B", which you will recognize as an application of modus ponens from formal logic. Analo…

I think the main point against analogies is when they are used as proof for the situation they are being compared to.

I'm not versed in formal logic, but I believe it would be:

"A -> B", and I want to prove that "C -> D"

So I make the analogy that "A is similar to C, and B to D in some ways" thus then C -> D"

A lot of people will take this as a valid proof. But it has yet to be proven that A and C, and B and D are actually interchangeable.

Edit: To refer this back to the original argument, saying that the AppStore is like a brick and mortar store, and Cheerios is like Epic games is a nice analogy, but it can't possibly prove anything because they are just not the same thing.

What they may do though, is potentially align the reader's point of view with the writer's, but not necessarily towards the _right_ point of view, assuming there is one.

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

#943

Post by garaetjjte »

giantrobot wrote: post #616
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…

You're not going to get open firmware. Cell phones are radio transceivers in the hands of millions of unlicensed users. The only reason any of the cellular infrastructure works is all the devices run tested and certified firmware. For most cellular basebands the PHY is more powerful and capable than the regulations would normally allow. They only get certified for consumer use because the firmware bounds the operatio…

You can buy various SDR devices without any license, it's not hard to make jammer if you want to.

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

#944

Post by simion314 »

nodamage wrote: post #941
simion314 wrote: post #921

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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 off…

Blacklisting may be an appropriate solution for malware but doesn't help with privacy issues because apps distributed outside the App Store by definition won't be subject to the App Store privacy rules. > 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 s…

> because apps distributed outside the App Store by definition won't be subject to the App Store privacy rules.

Can you explain? Side loading apps won't disable the sandbox so the app won't have access to your files, sensors or peripherals without permissions. The OS could be even more privacy focused by allowing power users to enable an option to fake private data like contacts,photos,location etc for apps that would refuse to run without this permissions.

Second thing, what extra privacy a manual review of a guy would add to an app that can't be done better on the device by sandboxing and code?

Side loading would be used by power users most of the time or people in countries with censorship. We will not repeat the Windows story , we would repeat the Linux story where we always had trusted apps on trusted repos and only power users would "side load" stuff, on Windows the story wad different, you needed something you used google and run the first thing you find.

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

#945

Post by ikurei »

> For most purchases made within its App Store, Apple takes 30% of the purchase price. No other transaction fee — in any industry — comes close.

Isn't this blatantly false?

Android's Play Store takes the same 30%, as does Steam. I doubt most physical retailers get significantly less.

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

#946

Post by eqtn »

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…

Then epic games, netflix, spotify and several other apps will have a tutorial on how to remove the lock, so that they can install the app or alternative appstores. And if apple makes it incredibly difficult to remove the lock, then company like Epic will sue again for making it so difficult to install 3rd party app stores (eg: Google play store)

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

#947

Post by yyyk »

imtringued wrote: post #933
yyyk wrote: post #837

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No hiding required. Inserts are allowed according to eBay policy: https://www.ebay.com/help/policies/payment-policies/offers-b...

It doesn't read to me that way. >Buyers and sellers can't: >In any communications with another eBay member, refer to or promote external websites that facilitate sales outside of eBay I would count sending a "letter" along with your product to be a form of communication. >Use contact information obtained through an eBay transaction to offer to buy or sell an item outside of eBay This would prevent you from adding the…

You're interpreting this in the way Apple would, not in the way eBay actually does.

>>In any communications with another eBay member, refer to or promote external websites that facilitate sales outside of eBay

>I would count sending a "letter" along with your product to be a form of communication.

This means one can't use eBay's messaging for promotion, but one can use one's own product. The way you're interpreting this would mean that no one selling in eBay could send letters (or even advertise) anywhere outside eBay because it might reach an eBay member.

>>Use contact information obtained through an eBay transaction to offer to buy or sell an item outside of eBay

>This would prevent you from adding the insert to the package.

This means one can't use the paypal address for direct mail for these purposes. However, you don't even have to know who the customer is to add an insert or to package your product such that it refers to your website.

>>Offer catalogs or other items that are used to order items directly outside of eBay

>An insert is effectively a mini catalog.

It's basically Google's rule on not promoting other App Stores in their Play Store.

Fact: Plenty of people do this in practice and eBay is not cracking down. Maybe it's not interpreted the way you think it is?

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

#948

Post by eqtn »

nwienert wrote: post #940
nuker wrote: post #861

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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, Users will just flip it off for the first evil app they told to install by friends. Think about 95% of all users.

It’s still sandboxed. What evil thing would it be doing?

Do you need the outside app to have access to bluetooth, location, storage etc? And if apple restricts the storage, then a company will sue apple again for the restrictions saying that the iOS photos app have unrestricted access to photos, whereas an outside app doesn't.

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

#950

Post by eqtn »

AlexandrB wrote: post #86

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?

And if consoles are forced to allow alternative stores, we won't be able to buy these consoles at the current prices as they won't be subsidised anymore. Loss for consumers
Post reply on HN