Live data from Hacker News

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

appfairness.org

971–980 of 1001 posts

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

#971
post #883

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Alright, after returning my iOS device I became Amish. I fully expect Apple to cancel my subscription via Mail and refund me back dated to when the letter was post dated ! My point is Apple isn't doing this on purpose to you, you're just in a very strange use case

Yes, Apple should let you cancel by mail. And the web. You keep making these claims that I'm sure sound more outlandish to you, and I think all of them are quite reasonable. The purpose of a system is what it does.

How many users as a percentage do you think are signing up for IOS services , discarding their IOS devices and then don't have access to a Mac or Windows PC ?

Very few people use Linux as their desktop is. To be honest they should allow you to reply to the email and allow a cancelation, but you following into an edge case isn't deliberate.

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

#972
post #913

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Public Heath and safety standards are irrelevant to product features, which is what we're taking about here.

How are health and safety standards irrelevant to product features?

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

#973
post #972

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Public Heath and safety standards are irrelevant to product features, which is what we're taking about here.

How are health and safety standards irrelevant to product features?

Better question: how are they at all relevant? The health and safety regulations are proscriptive: you must not harm consumers. On the other hand, product features are creative expression. It would be like the government telling you that your novel must include at least three references to other writers' works.

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

#974

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> should not be allowed to mess with systems that can literally end their life by exploding in their pockets! This is non-sense fearmongering. Giving people the ability to install fortnite, on an official fortnite app store, is not going to cause people to die from phone explosion It is just not going to happen. Fortnite is not going to blow you up. The reason why I know this to be the case, is that half the US smart…

>> should not be allowed to mess with systems that can literally end their life by exploding in their pockets!

> This is non-sense fearmongering.

I was referring to "Root access"; not the ability to install Fortnite. There's a difference.

People have the ability to install Fortnite. Do it through the Apple App Store.

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

#975
post #956
post #863

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You misread my comment. I wasn't advocating for, or against, Apple or any other company. My comment applied to the entire smartphone market, and how it was different from the entire console market. Saying that because a certain model (seemingly) works in consoles, that it should also work in phones is lazy thinking. Saying "the iPhone is a console, end of story" is a ridiculous analogy. It's also an analogy that excl…

> Try asking anyone not in the top 5% of the worlds wealth if a gaming console and a smart phone are of comparable importance. Then, ask them if smartphones and consoles should be afforded similar consideration and protections by their society. You're not directly addressing the argument. Literally nobody here suggested that they are of comparable importance. Everyone concedes that smartphones are far more "important…

> The central argument is that while there is undeniably an "importance gap" between the two, we ought to apply the same principles because the gap is ephemeral.

That's the argument you are trying to make this comment thread about. It has nothing to do with my objection to equating smartphones with consoles today (which I should remind, you is the comment you replied to). I only suggested that: "we need to recognize [the societal importance of smartphones] and frame our discussions accordingly." Equating smartphones with consoles diminishes their significance for the purpose of framing an argument in a certain way. It's just not helpful.

You're saying that my take somehow violates some universally "consistent first principle" because the current state is ephemeral. Yet, I made no claims about what one should think in the future. I described how it is now, and articulated that the trend is likely to continue. You seem to agree with my take on the current state and the trend right?

Then, you went off on a tangent and said the following:

>some of us enjoy the freedom to use a tightly controlled operating system for our own convenience

>the desire to break that up [is] a violation of our original choice.

>You might have a good point to make if consumers originally expected to have some level of control over their Apple phones, but people explicitly signed up for the opposite of that

>You might also have a good point to make here if there was no alternative in the market,

>are equally accessible on both platforms, and switching between the two is fairly straightforward

Whoa. You're arguing like 5 or 6 different point I never tried to make. It's like you saw the word "iPhone" and immediately went into super defensive mode. That's... uh.. shall we say, concerning.

What I did say was in support of (most of) what you've said above "One can certainly argue that because of all that, the app ecosystem should be tightly controlled. That's fair."

It's actually funny because despite what you've assumed, I'm actually an Apple user and developer. I've exclusively used their phones and computers for over a decade. I love them. In my living room (where I'm sitting right now), there are over $10k worth of Apple products. Yet somehow you keep assuming that I'm anti-Apple. And you're relentlessly countering arguments I never made. Stop it.

Please.. for the love of everything, re-read my comments now that you know I'm an avid Apple user. Note especially that I've pointed out (at least twice) that my comments are about the entire market and have nothing to do with individual manufacturers. I genuinely don't know how to make it any clearer than:

>My comment was not about a particular company, nor was it advocating for any specific policy.

>I wasn't advocating for, or against, Apple or any other company. My comment applied to the entire smartphone market, and how it was different from the entire console market.

So, what are you arguing? When you reply, try not to use the phrase "(universal) first principle". Your use of that phrase to describe an opinion comes across as condescending and arrogant.

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

#976

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Well Android has 80% market share, but there’s too many confounding factors to know why. If the vast majority of devices already have this capability, what difference is it really going to make forcing it on the remaining 20%? Why hasn't Apple already been forced to lower their fees if they are the underdog in terms of market share? For that matter, why hasn't Google been forced to, given how easy it is to sideload…

I think you've moved the goalposts quite a bit in this thread and I've engaged just to refute the sub-points, but the main points stand. Apple has dominance in many markets, like the US. In fact you could say the reason Android has such global market-share is because they commoditized their OS, ie, allowing for competition to drive down prices. So you're claiming the same forces wouldn't affect software? Android apps…

> I think legislating allowing more freedom on personal general computing devices would be a good thing with many benefits to society as I've enumerated already.

This seems on the surface to be the libertarian position, but imho it's subtly authoritarian - you weren't able to convince most people to use the freely available unlocked hardware you're advocating for, so instead you'd like to use the full force of the law to make all product designers create what you want them to create. If the benefits of unlocked hardware were so evident, surely the consumers would already be reaping the rewards on the unlocked hardware they can buy right now?

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

#977
post #871

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you quote me, please don't omit the context. Which was: How about instead you were denied the right to own a smartphone? But were told it's okay because hey, you have a console! It's a perfect substitute! A game console is not, as I'm sure you'll agree, a substitute for a smartphone. Which is what the (intentionally ridiculous) hypothetical was illustrating. The analogy of the parent was Coke v. Pepsi, but that fa…

I understand the context but I think you've actually largely misunderstood the point of the original poster you were quoting: > To me the iPhone is a console, end of story. That poster was suggesting the iPhone is an intentionally locked-down device similar to the way that consoles are locked-down devices. They also suggested there are alternative devices on the market (Android for smartphones, PCs for gaming) that a…

Try to re-read my comment detached from the original posters overall argument since I actually made no mention of it.

My problem (as I though was clear, perhaps not) is with dismissively equating (any) smartphone with consoles. Especially as it relates to business models and user freedoms. It's intellectually lazy and is especially a disservice when used dismissively ("end of story"). We can and should do better.

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

#978

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Except Apple is obsessed with taking responsibility for the entire user experience. Also, as people experience the subpar user experience w other app stores, they will still bring it to Apple for support. And probably blame apple - “it’s their logo on the cover”. Consumer behavior is not intelligent.

Yes, it is intelligent. In aggregate the market is intelligent.

How do you define the heuristic to tell? I can't do it without resorting to a tautology or circular logic.

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

#979
post #914
post #906

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do we, though? I feel like most ebooks on Amazon are priced similarly to their paperback counterparts, or at least not significantly lower to the point that it reflects the fact that they don't have to manufacture a physical good or get someone to drive a truck to bring it to me.

I mean you’re tying value to cost which is weird for art (which is the majority of e-books, novels) This is like complaining a painting is too expensive because the canvas and paint only cost 100 dollars. The major value of a book, to a consumer, is the words it contains not the paper it’s printed on.

From the Department of Justices perspective value is tied to price. They wanted to stop Apple from asking for price parity with other outlets because it would drive prices up.

And what happened after their victory is that prices didn’t go down, they look like they went up.

Of course this has little to do with the artists, they typically don’t get to price their novels, and only get a royalty that’s not likely impacted much either way. Higher prices are higher royalties per unit, sure, but if they lead to lower unit sales it’s not likely better.

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

#980

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you've moved the goalposts quite a bit in this thread and I've engaged just to refute the sub-points, but the main points stand. Apple has dominance in many markets, like the US. In fact you could say the reason Android has such global market-share is because they commoditized their OS, ie, allowing for competition to drive down prices. So you're claiming the same forces wouldn't affect software? Android apps…

> I think legislating allowing more freedom on personal general computing devices would be a good thing with many benefits to society as I've enumerated already. This seems on the surface to be the libertarian position, but imho it's subtly authoritarian - you weren't able to convince most people to use the freely available unlocked hardware you're advocating for, so instead you'd like to use the full force of the la…

That’s not how lock-in works, and you’re trying to go back to free market libertarian philosophy. Handicap elevators , building codes, emissions standards are “authoritarian”.

Libertarian philosophy is maybe the least compelling of them all in my opinion.

Post reply on HN