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

231–240 of 285 posts

Re: A top-grossing scam on the App Store

#231

Post by bosswipe »

pranau wrote: post #129
coldtea wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.…

>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…

This has happened with Epic.

Re: A top-grossing scam on the App Store

#232

Post by ChrisMarshallNY »

themacguffinman wrote: post #224
ChrisMarshallNY wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think size may also be construed as "infrastructure." For example, Facebook now has a couple of billion users. It has reached the point where we often have to get Facebook accounts/pages, if we want to reach certain users. In short, Facebook has become necessary to "survive," in a sense. That sort of puts it into the realm of a utility; like power or water. The idea of a utility, is that it is deliberately allowed…

> For example, Facebook now has a couple of billion users. It has reached the point where we often have to get Facebook accounts/pages, if we want to reach certain users. In short, Facebook has become necessary to "survive," in a sense. Not in any meaningful sense that I can understand. Seems hard to argue that all the people on HN who've plainly stated that they left Facebook can be considered dead or struggling to…

It was a figure of speech. I was talking about a business, or other type of endeavor (note quotes around “survive.” Gives a clue).

I ran an open-source initiative for ten years, barely making headway.

Then I set up a Facebook group for it.

Within a few months, its reach had exploded worldwide, it became the de facto world standard, and a huge new team had taken it over.

It was not all Facebook, but the Facebook presence was a big part of it. It’s the most active hub for that effort by far.

Also, due to the nature of that particular effort, I guarantee that there are people (probably many) that are alive today, because of Facebook.

It’s entirely possible to hop in a sailboat, and get to Hawai’i, but most people would prefer flying there.

It can be said that Hawai’i requires air travel to “survive” (but I suspect that there are a number of native Hawai’ian folks that feel as if this ease of access has been anything but a blessing).

Re: A top-grossing scam on the App Store

#233

Post by ksec »

Apocryphon wrote: post #83
tolmasky wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I actually believe that if they allowed side-loading it would be one of the best ways to guarantee that they continue capturing 30% of revenue in perpetuity. This is because they could actually for the first time make developers feel like they're getting something for that 30%, as opposed to it being an "existence tax". Apple could actually with a straight face say "hey, you don't HAVE to be on the store, try doing i…

Truth be told, Apple could own side-loading on its own terms. They can present their own APIs that provide some freedom outside of the App Store, without ceding all of their control. Wrap it up in copious disclaimers and language informing the end-user that Apple is not responsible for what happens with these "advanced settings." Bake security checks into this process. Make side-loading into a walled garden unto itse…

>They can present their own APIs that provide some freedom outside of the App Store, without ceding all of their control.

That is what I have been saying for quite some time. If Apple separate their Game Store and held some of those API, they have effectively kept 80% of their App Store revenue intact even if they allowed side loading.

Then at the expense of 20% of their App Store revenue, they can think what is the best possible balance to the problem here.

Re: A top-grossing scam on the App Store

#234

Post by ksec »

amelius wrote: post #103
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…

The real issue is that "AppStore" and "ContentFilter" are two orthogonal things (which Apple conflates). We can have multiple instances of both. And we probably should.

OH Yes. I think you perfectly describe it something no others have done. ( At least I have yet to seen any )

Re: A top-grossing scam on the App Store

#235

Post by ksec »

zepto wrote: post #216
Apocryphon wrote: post #205

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your Apple bashing is really quite tiresome. Macs are serious machines and have grown in leaps and bounds over the past two decades. Are you seriously saying the de facto development platform for Silicon Valley startups, as well as the home for Apple Silicon, is no longer a “serious target”? No need to shill for Windows here.

It’s not a serious target for App Store scams, or scam software in general, because the user base is tiny compared to iOS. I think you know this.

> because the user base is tiny compared to iOS.

One Tenth. Or 100M+ User with lots of room to grow.

I wouldn't use tiny to describe it, even in comparative sense.

Re: A top-grossing scam on the App Store

#236

Post by pbhjpbhj »

bosswipe wrote: post #231
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…

This has happened with Epic.

It is pretty crazy that simple providing an install link means, as you're the top choice in a duopoly, that you demand 30% of gross. Surely the costs to Apple is Background, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epic_Games_v._Apple.

Re: A top-grossing scam on the App Store

#237

Post by pentae »

ksec wrote: post #235
zepto wrote: post #216

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s not a serious target for App Store scams, or scam software in general, because the user base is tiny compared to iOS. I think you know this.

> because the user base is tiny compared to iOS. One Tenth. Or 100M+ User with lots of room to grow. I wouldn't use tiny to describe it, even in comparative sense.

Especially considering the value of the userbase and the fact theres millions of PC's propping up 'marketshare' that aren't even being used as personal computing devices (retail displays/signage, corporate/government pc's)

Re: A top-grossing scam on the App Store

#238

Post by themacguffinman »

ChrisMarshallNY wrote: post #232
themacguffinman wrote: post #224

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> For example, Facebook now has a couple of billion users. It has reached the point where we often have to get Facebook accounts/pages, if we want to reach certain users. In short, Facebook has become necessary to "survive," in a sense. Not in any meaningful sense that I can understand. Seems hard to argue that all the people on HN who've plainly stated that they left Facebook can be considered dead or struggling to…

It was a figure of speech. I was talking about a business, or other type of endeavor (note quotes around “survive.” Gives a clue). I ran an open-source initiative for ten years, barely making headway. Then I set up a Facebook group for it. Within a few months, its reach had exploded worldwide, it became the de facto world standard, and a huge new team had taken it over. It was not all Facebook, but the Facebook prese…

My bad for being unclear, I know it's not literal survival, I was responding to the implication: because Facebook is needed for some kind of "survival", it follows that Facebook is a utility that cannot be controlled by a company. That may be true for actual survival of actual people, but you're not talking about that. Guaranteed utilities/things in most countries are classified as such because they are necessary for literal human survival in modern society - electricity, water, food stamps, shelter - but you use the word "survive" which suggests actual survival while disclaiming the meaning by putting quotes around it and saying it's just a figure of speech. Facebook is not even close to a utility, it may only seem so if "survive" is re-defined to mean something totally different than what we use when we talk about a public utility.

I appreciate your story but open source projects don't inherently deserve to survive. Businesses don't inherently deserve to survive.

More importantly, the fact that Facebook can and has saved lives doesn't make it necessary for survival either. I'm sure a Taylor Swift song has brought someone back from the brink of suicide and indirectly saved lives by some definition, but it would be absurd to consider Taylor Swift songs to be a public utility necessary for survival.

Re: A top-grossing scam on the App Store

#239

Post by dustinmoris »

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…

How you obtain, install, update and manage apps is one of the key elements of a smartphone. If people are so against the fundamental way of how Apple does its smartphone then why are these people buying an iPhone if it makes them so unhappy? I honestly don’t get it. If you dislike the AppStore so much and oppose how Apple runs its products then don’t buy it. If enough people feel that way then it will incentivise Apple to change course. Currently it feels that the vast majority have no issue whatsoever and it’s only a small vocal minority (probably some dodgy App developers) who complain for their own benefit. Just get an Android and only develop for Android. Nobody was born as an App developer. You chose yourself to develop apps. If AppStores are so hostile and the current model s financially unattractive then why did you decide to become an App developer?

Re: A top-grossing scam on the App Store

#240

Post by ChrisMarshallNY »

themacguffinman wrote: post #238
ChrisMarshallNY wrote: post #232

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It was a figure of speech. I was talking about a business, or other type of endeavor (note quotes around “survive.” Gives a clue). I ran an open-source initiative for ten years, barely making headway. Then I set up a Facebook group for it. Within a few months, its reach had exploded worldwide, it became the de facto world standard, and a huge new team had taken it over. It was not all Facebook, but the Facebook prese…

My bad for being unclear, I know it's not literal survival, I was responding to the implication: because Facebook is needed for some kind of "survival", it follows that Facebook is a utility that cannot be controlled by a company. That may be true for actual survival of actual people, but you're not talking about that. Guaranteed utilities/things in most countries are classified as such because they are necessary for…

I understand. I suspect that we see things differently, and probably won't be able to find common ground.

But, the project I worked on is definitely not something to be compared to a Taylor Swift song, and I understand that this comes from a position of unfamiliarity. That's fine, but I'm happy to elucidate, offline, if you wish.

Post reply on HN