261–270 of 285 posts
The scam really is about the iOS Subscriptions and how its easy to have a free trial then auto-bill you for some absurd amount. Very easy to trick people into doing this. Apple should just remove Subscriptions completely and have app developers turn them into consumable IAPs that you have to buy every X months. The app developer can still do a free trial in their own code. Games do this all the time with "premium". Y…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> All "big" players still go through the Play Store. There are many big players that don't go through the Play Store, and for a variety of reasons. Fortnite and ISP-promoted apps and device-manucacturer apps (for business and leverage reasons), DMM (because a primary line of their business is in adult content), and basically everything in mainland China (because Google doesn't operate there). These players all operat…
Isn’t Fortnite basically entirely back on the play store and that’s where most users are coming from? That proves it doesn’t work.
But ISPs still deliver apps through their app stores, and whole segments of big players also successfully distribute outside of it, out of necessity: adult content and the Chinese ecosystem. Note that the DMM example I cited is unheard of outside of Japan, but very well-known in Japan itself.
How does Apple even solve this problem? On one hand, they're already having trouble with legitimate developers getting apps on the store (or at least they used to). On the other hand, there are tons of low-quality and scam apps. I agree with common sentiment here that people should be able to install apps from wherever they want. But a curated "App Store" for most people is a good idea. Otherwise your entire system's…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> That’s exactly what Epic, for example is asking for. And most would be satisfied with less. > If I was wrong, you’d have been able to respond with an example. Qubes OS. > Last time was the EBook settlement. That was over five years ago. > I guess you aren’t aware of Epic’s case. Epic's case isn't getting very far and it's quite possible that it would not have arisen at all if Apple had shown any interest at all at…
>> That’s exactly what Epic, for example is asking for. >And most would be satisfied with less. So you lied when you said ‘no one is asking for this’. > If I was wrong, you’d have been able to respond with an example. > Qubes OS. You do realize that isn’t completely secure. > Last time was the EBook settlement. That was over five years ago. So what? > I guess you aren’t aware of Epic’s case. Epic's case isn't getting…
I have literally never written "no one is asking for this" until now.
> You do realize that isn’t completely secure.
Source?
> Their case is proceeding as they planned and oral arguments are to be heard soon.
So what?
> Have you considered writing for an authoritarian politburo?
Have you considered trying to have a conversation without making a personal attack?
> So you expect users to choose between thousands of stores?
There would not be thousands of stores. Already on Android, there is a handful of stores and most stick to the Google Play Store. There aren't even thousands of stores on PC.
> They don’t have all the apps and they aren’t scam free.
But they don't need to have all of the apps. If anything, that previous line of conversation is talking about third party stores that would differentiate on greater security/privacy than the App Store, which would necessitate them having fewer apps.
> Also they are tiny experiments used by enthusiasts and are completely unrepresentative of what will happen when several billion dollar corporations and VC backed plays open stores.
Which is unlikely to happen, based on previous points already made, which you have repeatedly refused engaged in, opting instead to debase yourself and your position with personal attacks instead of substantiative points.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Actually, the Mac App Store has received its share of scams. https://www.howtogeek.com/281849/dont-be-fooled-the-mac-app-... https://www.laptopmag.com/articles/mac-app-store-scam-apps
And ransomware and botnets too: https://www.avg.com/en/signal/mac-ransomware-remove-protect Fortunately iOS users don’t have those problems because of the security model that you are so quick to dismiss.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
F-Droid is orders of magnitude smaller, and its users are generally far more advanced, hence not worth trying to scam. The same applies to GNU/Linux too, though there's also other differences there too. Scale is really the issue, Android has 3 billion users, iOS probably has over a billion too.
Looking at the Android model, despite its greater openness than iOS, there is also only one dominant app market with a handful of third part competitors, from well-curated open source repos like F-Droid or XDA Labs to OEM third party ones that no one actually uses or wants to use like the Amazon Appstore or Samsung AppStack. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Android_app_stores Really hard to say what would happen…
That's absolutely what will happen, there's no evidence of otherwise.
But this is all beside the point. The argument is, if there existed a app store that was as large as Play Store / iOS store, it would have similar moderation issues. The old headline implies that these companies aren't trying to moderate, rather than realizing that moderating content at scale is a REALLY hard problem no one has solved.
No Google/Youtube, not Apple, not Amazon/Twitch, not Facebook, not Twitter, not Microsoft, no one.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>> That’s exactly what Epic, for example is asking for. >And most would be satisfied with less. So you lied when you said ‘no one is asking for this’. > If I was wrong, you’d have been able to respond with an example. > Qubes OS. You do realize that isn’t completely secure. > Last time was the EBook settlement. That was over five years ago. So what? > I guess you aren’t aware of Epic’s case. Epic's case isn't getting…
> So you lied when you said ‘no one is asking for this’. I have literally never written "no one is asking for this" until now. > You do realize that isn’t completely secure. Source? > Their case is proceeding as they planned and oral arguments are to be heard soon. So what? > Have you considered writing for an authoritarian politburo? Have you considered trying to have a conversation without making a personal attack?…
Not literally, but it was still a lie:
> No one is mandating first class alternative stores on iOS
>> Their case is proceeding as they planned and oral arguments are to be heard soon.
> So what?
>> Have you considered writing for an authoritarian politburo?
> Have you considered trying to have a conversation without making a personal attack?
I’m sorry you feel attacked. I was genuinely impressed.
The suggestion that Apple should choose to do something if they want to avoid being forced to do it, is impressively authoritarian doublethink. A clever gambit.
> If anything, that previous line of conversation is talking about third party stores that would differentiate on greater security/privacy than the App Store, which would necessitate them having fewer apps.
Right, which means that users would be forced to use a range of stores, so the fact that some security focused stores might exist is moot.
> Which is unlikely to happen, based on previous points already made, which you have repeatedly refused engaged in,
If there was a point I’d refused to engage, you’d be able to provide an example.
> opting instead to debase yourself and your position with personal attacks instead of substantiative points.
I haven’t made any personal attacks. I have commented on what you said, not who you are.
For a moment I considered that you might be being disingenuous, but I don’t think you are. I believe that what you have written reflects your way of thinking.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> So you lied when you said ‘no one is asking for this’. I have literally never written "no one is asking for this" until now. > You do realize that isn’t completely secure. Source? > Their case is proceeding as they planned and oral arguments are to be heard soon. So what? > Have you considered writing for an authoritarian politburo? Have you considered trying to have a conversation without making a personal attack?…
>> So you lied when you said ‘no one is asking for this’. > I have literally never written "no one is asking for this" until now. Not literally, but it was still a lie: > No one is mandating first class alternative stores on iOS >> Their case is proceeding as they planned and oral arguments are to be heard soon. > So what? >> Have you considered writing for an authoritarian politburo? > Have you considered trying to…
Very well, I can actually admit fault, unlike others in this conversation, and I was indeed mistaken when I claimed that no one is mandating it.
That said, this entire conversation was only tangentially related to Epic, there are people beyond them who want third party app stores on iOS, and not all of them want them to be first class alternatives, nor is Epic's case the alpha or the omega on this subject. Epic does not get to shape this conversation, even if they are the ones pushing the court case. If anything, Apple willingly ceding some power to non-first class third party stores could potentially defang Epic's complaints, as it could increase both developer and consumer goodwill and expose Epic for the power-hungry empire builders they really are.
> I’m sorry you feel attacked. I was genuinely impressed.
Passing off an insult as a compliment? Have you considered writing for an authoritarian politburo?
> which means that users would be forced to use a range of stores
This point is unsubstantiated and does not match current reality in other software markets.
> so the fact that some security focused stores might exist is moot
It really doesn't, as users can choose to use those security focused stores if they want to. Similar to how users who value security or privacy may choose iOS over Android already, users can choose security-focused stores over the App Store in the future.
> you’d be able to provide an example
I did.
>That is debatable, and discussed throughout this thread, including in my own comments:
> https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26799453
> https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26799283
> I think you fully stand behind what you are saying.
I think assigning personal motivations and intentions is not conducive to proper conversation.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>> So you lied when you said ‘no one is asking for this’. > I have literally never written "no one is asking for this" until now. Not literally, but it was still a lie: > No one is mandating first class alternative stores on iOS >> Their case is proceeding as they planned and oral arguments are to be heard soon. > So what? >> Have you considered writing for an authoritarian politburo? > Have you considered trying to…
> Not literally, but it was still a lie: Very well, I can actually admit fault, unlike others in this conversation, and I was indeed mistaken when I claimed that no one is mandating it. That said, this entire conversation was only tangentially related to Epic, there are people beyond them who want third party app stores on iOS, and not all of them want them to be first class alternatives, nor is Epic's case the alpha…
Are you saying you weren’t familiar with Epic’s case?
> If anything, Apple willingly ceding some power to non-first class third party stores could potentially defang Epic's complaints,
This is a restatement of the Orwellian argument that if Apple doesn’t want to be forced to open their store, they must open their store.
Also it seems like although you downplay Epic’s role, you have deployed this argument repeatedly now, and it relies on there being someone to force Apple, such as Epic or an Antitrust authority.
> as it could increase both developer and consumer goodwill
It could, or it could do a great deal of harm to the market. Perhaps Apple simply doesn’t agree with your assessment.
> I’m sorry you feel attacked. I was genuinely impressed. Passing off an insult as a compliment? Have you considered writing for an authoritarian politburo?
Yes. When I was a teenager I was enamored with communism. I grew out of that phase.
> which means that users would be forced to use a range of stores This point is unsubstantiated and does not match current reality in other software markets.
What other markets do you have in mind?
> so the fact that some security focused stores might exist is moot It really doesn't, as users can choose to use those security focused stores if they want to.
Not if they want commonly used Apps that are not in those stores.
> Similar to how users who value security or privacy may choose iOS over Android already,
No, it’s not similar because the iOS store does have all the apps.
> users can choose security-focused stores over the App Store in the future.
No, because then they wouldn’t have access to the wide range of apps.
> you’d be able to provide an example I did.
No you didn’t.
>That is debatable, and discussed throughout this thread, including in my own comments: > https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26799453 > https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26799283
All you say that seems relevant in those links is:
“ Really hard to say what would happen in a hypothetical situation where Apple allowed iOS alternative app stores. Maybe the overwhelming majority of users will continue to download only on the App Store, with a tiny minority of power users going to alternatives.”
Linking to somewhere else where you have expressed the same opinion doesn’t do anything to strengthen your position, except perhaps in the minds of people who don’t follow the link.
>> I think you fully stand behind what you are saying. > I think assigning personal motivations and intentions is not conducive to proper conversation.
Are you suggesting you do not stand behind what you are saying?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
And ransomware and botnets too: https://www.avg.com/en/signal/mac-ransomware-remove-protect Fortunately iOS users don’t have those problems because of the security model that you are so quick to dismiss.
https://us.norton.com/internetsecurity-emerging-threats-ios-... https://www.wired.com/story/apple-app-store-malware-click-fr...
Hard to see how you think such links support your argument for dismissing the security model.
Also of note - the central App Store was used to fix these problems.