Live data from Hacker News

EU says Apple’s App Store breaks competition rules after Spotify complaint

cnbc.com

691–700 of 825 posts

Re: EU says Apple’s App Store breaks competition rules after Spotify complaint

#691

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> > The UI has changed overtime, sometime substantially, > How so? I see an app in the store. I install it. An icon shows up on my screen. I tap it to open it. From iOS 6->7 there was a huge UI change where they went from a skeuomorphic design to a much flatter design. Every year since then they tweaked the design of iOS. Sometimes it might be as easy as building your app against the newer SDK to get the updated look…

Thank you for the very thoroughly detailed reply! > I'd be very wary of using it on anything new. That makes sense and I can understand it. On the other hand, the a text editor and todo app aren't exactly new apps ideas. > "Save this note to Dropbox" or "Open Twitter with this note's content as the tweet" and the list goes on. Perhaps this is a failing on my part again but... how is that an app problem? If the user h…

I'll try to keep this reply much more brief. I think the divide between what we think come largely from my expanding into talking about subscription service as a whole instead of just the examples you gave: text editor and todo app.

I can completely understand why some people might be fine with a text editor or todo app that doesn't change much and I'll ceed the point to you that the speed of mobile platforms causes work that might not otherwise be needed. Some of that comes from it still being a changing landscape where technology is improving. Desktops/laptops have not seen as large of leaps in part because they started from a much higher point. For a long time mobile phones had to be pretty limited because if they weren't they'd burn through the battery in no time at all (see: lack of backgrounding in early iOS/Android). I think the desktop platform (Windows, macOS, Linux) started from a much more mature (and open) place and thus it was easier to write something that would stand the test of time. Even then, things like gedit still get updates, nothing is ever really "done".

> Basic text editors and todo apps were solved decades ago.

Yes they were, now people want non-basic versions of both which is was brings up to where we are today. Part of that "required churn" can be blamed on Apple/Google but some of it is due to things that just weren't possible before. I won't pretend that Siri is good but Siri Intents (I think that's what it's called) is a newer (last few years or so) addition and I think it's a decent example of "why would a todo app need a subscription". The platform changes and your users want you to take advantage of the new features so that they can say "Hey Siri, tell Things to remind me do X" (don't get me started on not being able to set defaults). Or, to bring back another example, I might want a widget on my home screen of the next few items on my todo list.

Are these features necessary for todo app? No, in the general sense of "necessary" but yes in the sense of "needed to compete in the mobile stores". Platform churn aside, these new features require ongoing development and subscriptions mean you can roll out a feature as soon as it's ready instead of waiting for the next major point release so you have a list of features worth paying for all a once. Could a developer gate each feature behind a 1-time IAP? Sure but as a developer all I can think of is "there be dragons", that sounds miserable to support.

I do want to address the terminal program point you made. I've used mobile terminal and later mTerm on my jailbroken iPhone. For moving around my local phone's FS it's decent enough but I hated using it for SSH. The UI was just too clunky for mobile which is why I paid for Prompt1/2. I understand the annoyance at paying for something that is free on desktop but I think that misses the amount of work it takes to get a good SSH client on mobile. Could Apple add a Terminal app in the next OS release? Sure they could but unless they put in a lot of work it would be a terrible experience. I'm not trying to pretend Apple is perfect or blameless but I understand the decision.

Lastly, I agree with you that there are some apps that exist that don't require a subscription but one has been shoehorned in. I don't pay for apps like that, I guess I bristled up when you mentioned text editors (to which I pivoted to my notes app, Drafts) and todo manager (to which my mind jumped to Things), both of which I pay via a subscription. Your broader point about subscriptions being forced into some apps that don't make sense is correct, I just think sometimes people throw the baby out with the bathwater when it comes to subscriptions.

PS: If you are looking for linux-like terminal on iOS I would suggest you look at iSH[0]. It's free, open source, and seems like it would be something you might like.

[0] https://apps.apple.com/us/app/ish-shell/id1436902243

Re: EU says Apple’s App Store breaks competition rules after Spotify complaint

#692

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I recently had a change of heart on this issue when the prevalence of fraudulent apps on the App Store was documented[1]. It's hard to argue that Apple is providing significant benefit to either consumers or developers for their 30% cut when they seem incapable of reigning in obvious fraud. In addition, I think Apple pushing subscriptions as a solution for long term app funding (instead of upgrade pricing or other op…

> Overall, Apple has not been a good steward of the App Store. But the question on my mind is: what precedent are we setting by legally mandating what a corporation can do on a platform they solely built? And are we pulling up the ladder after the incumbents have climbed it? It's one thing to mandate how much pollution a factory may leak into a shared water supply. But the Apple app store is not a utility or natural…

> what precedent are we setting by legally mandating what a corporation can do on a platform they solely built? And are we pulling up the ladder after the incumbents have climbed it?

We are setting no new precedent. In the US, internet provider are regulated as utilities and are stripped of any power on the content they serve, and the platform thrived as a result. What would Internet look like today if AOL had applied Apple's policies?

If we go by that precedent, destroying the closed gardens around platforms is the best thing that could happen.

If we choose to ignore it, then shouldn't we welcome that network carriers demand their 30% share of Apple's profits?

Re: EU says Apple’s App Store breaks competition rules after Spotify complaint

#693

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I recently had a change of heart on this issue when the prevalence of fraudulent apps on the App Store was documented[1]. It's hard to argue that Apple is providing significant benefit to either consumers or developers for their 30% cut when they seem incapable of reigning in obvious fraud. In addition, I think Apple pushing subscriptions as a solution for long term app funding (instead of upgrade pricing or other op…

> Overall, Apple has not been a good steward of the App Store. But the question on my mind is: what precedent are we setting by legally mandating what a corporation can do on a platform they solely built? And are we pulling up the ladder after the incumbents have climbed it? It's one thing to mandate how much pollution a factory may leak into a shared water supply. But the Apple app store is not a utility or natural…

Of fundamental importance is that they run a platform. A platform creates a new economy and letting one party (which is not the government) regulate a market is a bad idea.

Also, there is the network effect and there is vendor lock-in. In the past other companies could not use Bell's telephone network, so the government stepped in. The same could happen with OSes.

Re: EU says Apple’s App Store breaks competition rules after Spotify complaint

#694
post #672

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Overall, Apple has not been a good steward of the App Store. But the question on my mind is: what precedent are we setting by legally mandating what a corporation can do on a platform they solely built? And are we pulling up the ladder after the incumbents have climbed it? It's one thing to mandate how much pollution a factory may leak into a shared water supply. But the Apple app store is not a utility or natural…

> What precedent are we setting by legally mandating what a corporation can do on a platform they solely built? This does not concern setting precedents. The antitrust laws are already there, this is just a case of them being applied. More broadly speaking, I'm not really sensitive to the argument "they built the platform, so they should get to choose to do with it whatever they want". Network effects are so large th…

> Network effects are so large...

Then are these network effects worth paying 30% for or not? If yes, you've just conceded the price is fair. If no, then Purism's Librem exists (and will not be bought by Apple).

> We need strong regulation to counter this, and to give small businesses a chance.

The same way it gave small railroad companies a chance? Or small oil, or small pharmaceutical, or small telecom? National legislation historically has been a method of pulling up the ladder behind robber barons, not of giving the little guy a chance.

Re: EU says Apple’s App Store breaks competition rules after Spotify complaint

#695
post #232

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're in effect saying "no, EU didn't sue iPhone because it added an App Store to iPhone, it sued iPhone because it was successful". Is that better? Become successful, get sued? Android has 87% market share, iOS has 13%. That's not even a monopoly. Of course we can define arbitrary categories like "Apple has monopoly on the iOS market". Which makes the concept of monopoly absolutely nonsensical, because then everyon…

What a moot argument, there's absolutely zero competition in the mobile market. The living proof of that is that the only tariff changes Apple ever made in their whole mobile history was because ... of a real threat of an anti-trust lawsuit. They basically admitting the fact themselves, you can't even make this up. Yes it's a duopoly and yes they are both abusing their market power. It got so bad that you have to get…

> The living proof of that is that the only tariff changes Apple ever made in their whole mobile history was because ... of a real threat of an anti-trust lawsuit.

Not only that, this change highlighted the App Store and Play Store cartel[1] that engages in price fixing[2]. Google also dropped their prices to match Apple's, but not any more or less.

Instead of mobile app distribution prices being dictated by the free market, they're dictated by the cartel. Prices have only changed once in a decade, and not in response to the market at all, but by the whims of the app store cartel.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cartel

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price_fixing

Re: EU says Apple’s App Store breaks competition rules after Spotify complaint

#696

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> For starters, the AppStore is not "good" That is your opinion. There is no merit in this subjective standpoint from a legal perspective unless you're willing to share the metric by which you arrived at this judgement. You brought up goodness with fast/good/cheap! And you certainly provided zero "metrics" in defense of its goodness, I at least provided my perspective as a customer with a concrete issue . I literally…

> HKMap.live is an app that Apple took down to appease China. The AppStore creates a single point of failure for nations to target and cut off. Most people here think it was pretty shitty to remove that app while Hong Kongers were fighting for a voice. China has the great firewall. I'm not an expert on it, but I assume whether Apple allows alternative app stores is entirely beside the point of whether people in HK wo…

> China has the great firewall. I'm not an expert on it, but I assume whether Apple allows alternative app stores is entirely beside the point of whether people in HK would be able to download and use a networked app.

The HKMap.live situation happened before the Chinese Firewall was in place in Hong Kong (2019), so that's really not an excuse. Regardless, the great firewall doesn't necessarily prevent person-to-person sharing of an app for instance. Ultimately, you should absolutely put the ball in their court to actively have to fight the spreading of the app as opposed to being a willing participant. BTW, Tor, that thing you ignored in the rest of your post, was designed exactly to fight against things like the Chinese Firewall.

> I also still think that macOS is a more secure OS by design vs Windows, so that may be another reason I'm picking on Windows.

This just makes no sense. If you are making a case against a change, you don't point to the worst implementation of it just because it's the worst, especially when the party that would actually be implementing the alternative has already successfully done so on another platform. It's like a state arguing against marijuana legalization by pointing to a completely different country instead of many of the other US states that have successfully legalized it without catastrophic results. iOS is also "more secure by design". So why do you assume iOS would become Windows and not macOS? There is no logic here, just the desire to use an outdated and more convenient comparison point. If you honestly believe that iOS without the AppStore would become Windows and not the Mac, then you have a very bizarrely low opinion of the engineers on iOS.

> I was very clear that I wasn't comparing the situation with the app store to actual literal murder, but that comparison weaves throughout most of your reply. My point was entirely about the implementation and not at all about the regulated activity.

Yup, and I have provided several great examples of why the situation is very different, including many examples of things that are not "bad" but Apple could not want on the store. Like Tor. And FireFox. All of which you ignored. I also showed examples of how it doesn't have to be a free-for-all that everyone must be subjected to, and that there are other ways to do it. Also ignored. I addressed the main substance of your argument, while still finding it hilarious that the best analogy you could come up with was an "abstract version of the purge".

Listen, I am honestly glad that the circumstances in your life are such that Apple's decisions may not have a meaningful impact on your ability to escape censorship or fight for your right to be heard, but I hope someday you'll understand that these real scenarios that have actually taken place matter as much as your hypothetical worst-case scenarios that involve Apple implementing a slightly different system in the most un-Apply way, as opposed to the way they've done so with tremendous success on their other platform.

Re: EU says Apple’s App Store breaks competition rules after Spotify complaint

#697

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Which is exactly why Apple should open up iOS to other app stores, and in order to keep iOS users secure they should focus on more things like App Tracking and Transparency, not on monopolizing app stores. This is self-contradictory. If Apple allows third-parties to distribute apps outside the App Store, they lose the ability to enforce their App Tracking and Transparency rules.

With all due respect, have you ever developed an application for iOS? Because it doesn't sound like it, as this is not how it works. Apps are sandboxed. In order to access certain features, they need to request permission from the operating system. e.g. there is a GPS chip in your iPhone. Apps, through the design of the OS (not the App Store), are unable to access the raw data coming from this unit themselves. Instea…

I have done mobile development (both iOS and Android) for a long time and am well aware how sandboxing works. You've misunderstood the issue if you think sandboxing sufficiently solves this problem.

Let me flip the question, are you aware what types of data apps collect in order to fingerprint a device? These are the same low level APIs that apps need for legitimate purposes, you can't simply disable them or put a permissions prompt in front of each one.

Re: EU says Apple’s App Store breaks competition rules after Spotify complaint

#698
Not related to this, but I got locked out of my apple account few days ago, this means : loose of everything I bought, cannot update any software. Only way to retrieve said account was trough a SMS system that was locked on a non mobile phone. They nicely allowed me after to use my email account for it (which was already linked), and promptly asked me to a new number.

To my surprise, this account status went back to it's original state (which mean I STILL have to re-do all of this process) and I'm still locked out of it.

But they took my money, they took my phone number. And they are happily locking me out every few because they basically do wtf they want.

I'm not buying any apple product anymore and I'm making sure everybody I know about knows about it. This company is a lie. These people are doing racketing in day light.

Re: EU says Apple’s App Store breaks competition rules after Spotify complaint

#699
post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But I think the key here, and probably a big reason Spotify went after Apple and not Google, is that on iOS you have to use Apple's app store. You can't distribute your app using your own infrastructure, or an alternative app store even if you want to.

While the situation is better on Android, not using the Play Store isn't a real option in most cases. Alternative stores cannot provide auto updates.

>Alternative stores cannot provide auto updates.

That sounds nice to me. Want me to update? Provide an appealing update! Although I am still not a fan of having any sort of app store in the first place.

Re: EU says Apple’s App Store breaks competition rules after Spotify complaint

#700

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Apple could be smart and implement what real developers need and not what advertisers want. But good performance, and better APIs would mean you could avoid using native apps.

Once again: real developers may want a lot of things. I've seen developers want bluetooth and location APIs in the browser. And yet, both Apple and Mozilla (note: not just Apple ) consider these APIs harmful as currently presented and specified and haven't found/can't find a way to implement them in a non-harmful way. And these APIs are the most visible. There are many other APIs and features that don't make their wa…

>and Google wants to subsume and replace the web with all things Google

and Apple wants that web apps can't compete with native apps, like Apple will make sure a web based streaming app will not be usable.

Why location API is not good in browser but microphone and camera is fine?

Post reply on HN