Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

A top-grossing scam on the App Store

twitter.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 285 posts

Re: A top-grossing scam on the App Store

#151

Post by spartanatreyu »

spullara wrote: post #139
pranau wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>And if side-loading was alowed then every big player whose app users "have to have", e.g. Google, Facebook, Abobe, Zoom, Epic, would start their own independent app store (or distribution just for their apps). >Users would have no recourse than to install the app for there (or do without Facebook or Zoom etc). We are already aware of a platform that allows easy sideloading - Android. And most apps on Android are dis…

Money. There is way more money in the iOS ecosystem.

I don't think you're giving enough weight to the network effect. People don't want to switch from what they already use.

Worst case scenario, some managers decide to include an app store inside their app, they ignore the reality of the chance of success and put a whole bunch of marketing in it to their higher ups. Then they get promoted or switch jobs then blame whoever gets stuck with it 3-6 months later when it fails.

After that we'll probably end up seeing real use cases side loaded app stores (like hobby game development, or open source tools that don't want to or can't pay the Apple tax).

Re: A top-grossing scam on the App Store

#152

Post by Apocryphon »

zepto wrote: post #134
Daho0n wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Who said remove them? Access to other app stores could just as easily let you pick one with more control and review instead of less. That should be up to the user. Not you, me or Apple.

> That should be up to the user. Not you, me or Apple. It’s pretty obvious why this is flawed: a lot of people will end up being sold on scammy or privacy invading stores. You’ll be able to blame them for making the wrong choice, but it won’t actually be their fault. It will be the fault of those who prevented Apple from offering a curated environment.

> It’s pretty obvious why this is flawed: a lot of people will end up being sold on scammy or privacy invading stores.

Why? The vast majority will continue to use the App Store. Apple could also manage this situation to both educate users and frame the situation in such a way so that only power users would leave the safety of the App Store to seek out sideloading or alternative stores.

The dichotomy of walled garden vs. the Wild West is a false one and a failure of imagination that ignores the possibility of a middle ground. If you believe Apple can truly build a good walled garden, you can also believe that Apple can lift restrictions and allow third party stores in a sensible, well-managed way without sacrificing product quality.

> It will be the fault of those who prevented Apple from offering a curated environment.

Actually, it would be the fault of the scammers and privacy-invaders in question.

Re: A top-grossing scam on the App Store

#153

Post by Apocryphon »

coldtea wrote: post #150
pranau wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>And if side-loading was alowed then every big player whose app users "have to have", e.g. Google, Facebook, Abobe, Zoom, Epic, would start their own independent app store (or distribution just for their apps). >Users would have no recourse than to install the app for there (or do without Facebook or Zoom etc). We are already aware of a platform that allows easy sideloading - Android. And most apps on Android are dis…

> When there is no such thing as the examples you described going on in Android, why do you expect iOS to be different? Several reasons why this hasn't happened on Android. Let's see a few examples: (1) iOS doesn't let other players have their own broswer engines. Google is one of those other players, and if the iOS App Store wasn't the only game in town, they'd have an alternative pronto. Android is theirs, so they…

1) One wonders if it would be possible for Apple to disable certain types of apps regardless of how they're obtained, including alternative browser engines. I think already the OS can prevent apps from overstepping its permissions system already? Though jailbreaking can still override that.

2) That would explain greater developer demand for a third party store on iOS, but not why users would seek out these more ad-intensive app stores.

3) Yeah, this would be a pretty major reason to drive third party app stores on iOS, though it's not as if there's a ton of sideloading on Android to get around the Play Store's own 30% cut, besides the high-profile Fortnite example.

4) Yes, and it would be annoying fragmentation if other major developers/publishers did the same on iOS, requiring the installation of a ton of third party app store apps and keeping track of different app store accounts.

But how many would really go through the hassle of building their own app store just to sell their products? (Maybe it'd be easier to find a way to sell and distribute their apps through their mobile browser sites.) One would suspect the number of alternate app stores to stabilize over time.

Re: A top-grossing scam on the App Store

#154

Post by 2OEH8eoCRo0 »

tolmasky wrote: post #54

Apple has just engineered the worst possible situation for themselves by being the only way to get apps on the store and by simultaneously incessantly marketing the store as "Safe and Secure". The former encourages them to maximize the number of apps on the store, while the latter encourages them to shoot first and ask questions later. If side-loading or alternative ways of getting apps onto the iPhone existed, then…

Right. The AppStore wouldn't disappear if the platform were more open- the AppStore would have to actually compete.

Re: A top-grossing scam on the App Store

#155

Post by tyrex2017 »

When I was doing iOS apps around 2016, there was a simple way to request a refund if you purchased sth by mistake. I think it was a web form using your Apple id. The amount was autocredited back to you immediately.

Not sure if this was the norm back then, and if it is now.

Re: A top-grossing scam on the App Store

#156

Post by aembleton »

ctdonath wrote: post #31
unicornfinder wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You know, I was thinking last night about the parallels between this and the anti-trust investigation into Microsoft back in the 90s. Back then Microsoft was in a heap of trouble over the fact that they bundled IE and didn't allow vendors to bundle other alternative browsers. Users could still install other browsers, but the fact that the OS came bundled with IE was seen as an abuse of Microsoft's market position. Ye…

Microsoft wasn’t selling the computer. Anyone is free to buy an iPhone, install apps on it, and resell it.

In the 90s, anyone could buy a Windows PC, install apps on it and resell it.

The point was that Microsoft were giving Internet Explorer away for free, pre installed with Windows. This abused the market dominance of Windows to expand use of Internet Explorer.

Re: A top-grossing scam on the App Store

#157

Post by Apocryphon »

Apocryphon wrote: post #85
ed_elliott_asc wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is the worst thing they could do, leave google open to host iOS apps on their store

Not really, judging by the current quality of the Play Store.

I should clarify the above means that given the (lack of) quality of the Play Store, I don't see Google hosting iOS apps would get much traction and receive many adopters.

Re: A top-grossing scam on the App Store

#158

Post by deckard1 »

AlexandrB wrote: post #137
unicornfinder wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You know, I was thinking last night about the parallels between this and the anti-trust investigation into Microsoft back in the 90s. Back then Microsoft was in a heap of trouble over the fact that they bundled IE and didn't allow vendors to bundle other alternative browsers. Users could still install other browsers, but the fact that the OS came bundled with IE was seen as an abuse of Microsoft's market position. Ye…

I think this analysis misses how dominant Microsoft was in the 90s and the myriad methods they used to stay in that position. Apple may be a huge chunk of the North American phone market, but Microsoft's share of the PC market in the 90s was over 90%. The only computers around were PCs[1] (desktop or laptop) and servers - there were no phones - so if you had a computer in your house, it was almost certainly running D…

I don't think it matters how dominate the iPhone is. Google and Apple are joined at the hip.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/25/technology/apple-google-s...

You think Google is going to piss off Apple too much with Android? Not likely.

> A forced breakup could mean the loss of easy money to Apple. But it would be a more significant threat to Google, which would have no obvious way to replace the lost traffic. It could also push Apple to acquire or build its own search engine.

So I would definitely argue that the future of Android and iPhone are intertwined.

Re: A top-grossing scam on the App Store

#159

Post by metalliqaz »

coldtea wrote: post #126
tolmasky wrote: post #54

Apple has just engineered the worst possible situation for themselves by being the only way to get apps on the store and by simultaneously incessantly marketing the store as "Safe and Secure". The former encourages them to maximize the number of apps on the store, while the latter encourages them to shoot first and ask questions later. If side-loading or alternative ways of getting apps onto the iPhone existed, then…

> If side-loading or alternative ways of getting apps onto the iPhone existed, then they could implement far stricter controls knowing that, worst case scenario, you can still get an app onto the iPhone. This is how it works on the Mac. Tor isn't on the Mac App Store, but that of course doesn't mean Tor can't be used on the Mac. And if side-loading was alowed then every big player whose app users "have to have", e.g.…

Android allows side loading and none of that stuff is an issue on Android. It exists, but it's not an issue. You can easily stay in the Play store, but if you choose not to... caveat emptor.

Re: A top-grossing scam on the App Store

#160

Post by zepto »

Apocryphon wrote: post #152
zepto wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> That should be up to the user. Not you, me or Apple. It’s pretty obvious why this is flawed: a lot of people will end up being sold on scammy or privacy invading stores. You’ll be able to blame them for making the wrong choice, but it won’t actually be their fault. It will be the fault of those who prevented Apple from offering a curated environment.

> It’s pretty obvious why this is flawed: a lot of people will end up being sold on scammy or privacy invading stores. Why? The vast majority will continue to use the App Store. Apple could also manage this situation to both educate users and frame the situation in such a way so that only power users would leave the safety of the App Store to seek out sideloading or alternative stores. The dichotomy of walled garden…

> The vast majority will continue to use the App Store.

Definitely not true. Most people will be forced to install alternative stores because those stores will pay for exclusives on key apps. Players like Facebook and Google will open stores and only make their products available within them.

> Apple could also manage this situation to both educate users and frame the situation in such a way so that only power users would leave the safety of the App Store to seek out sideloading or alternative stores.

Not true. If Apple is forced to allow alternative store, anti-trust regulators will prevent Apple from portraying their own store as safer or from framing the situation.

> The dichotomy of walled garden vs. the Wild West is a false one and a failure of imagination that ignores the possibility of a middle ground. If you believe Apple can truly build a good walled garden, you can also believe that Apple can lift restrictions and allow third party stores in a sensible, well-managed way without sacrificing product quality.

Not true. Apple obviously cannot manage the behavior of third parties who they are forced to allow to build stores.

> It will be the fault of those who prevented Apple from offering a curated environment. > Actually, it would be the fault of the scammers and privacy-invaders in question.

Clearly false. We know the scammers and privacy invaders will act, but are currently limited in their ability to do so.

Forcing Apple to reduce protections will be the proximate cause of their customers being vulnerable.

Post reply on HN