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

App store bill sails out of Senate Judiciary Committee

axios.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

171–180 of 437 posts

Re: App store bill sails out of Senate Judiciary Committee

#171

Post by shimfish »

Apocryphon wrote: post #151
shimfish wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And these services would all take a 15-30% cut. It wouldn't be profitable otherwise.

The 15% pay cut is an industry convention, but is that actually justified by any financial reasoning? With actual competition in this space, business models can be discovered that could potentially lower costs. Not to mention, given the VC effect, there will likely be newcomers that try to undercut Apple/Google and each other with lower prices by burning investor capital, for a time.

Which is another non-discussed aspect to this.

People are already upset that their digital purchases are controlled by Apple. Wait until the startup that they bought stacks of software from goes bust and all of their app purchases are gone.

Re: App store bill sails out of Senate Judiciary Committee

#172

Post by Apocryphon »

shimfish wrote: post #171
Apocryphon wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The 15% pay cut is an industry convention, but is that actually justified by any financial reasoning? With actual competition in this space, business models can be discovered that could potentially lower costs. Not to mention, given the VC effect, there will likely be newcomers that try to undercut Apple/Google and each other with lower prices by burning investor capital, for a time.

Which is another non-discussed aspect to this. People are already upset that their digital purchases are controlled by Apple. Wait until the startup that they bought stacks of software from goes bust and all of their app purchases are gone.

This current situation already exists with the App Store. There are apps that have been removed from the store that are simply gone forever, such as Flappy Bird, which was at least free. So how does this change anything? Just because Apple will outlive third party stores doesn't mean the situation you're describing doesn't already happen.

Re: App store bill sails out of Senate Judiciary Committee

#173

Post by Apocryphon »

shimfish wrote: post #146
henryfjordan wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The legislation would require Google/Apple to "step aside" and allow side-loading/alternative app stores, so yes? Google and Apple would still be welcome to operate their own stores. A 3rd-party cross-platform store would compete with them, hence no monopoly. Edit: I guess you read my comment to mean "Apple's app store would come to Android" or vice versa? That's a possibility. I'd prefer that to the current state of…

I still end up with one more app store to deal with. Unless this 3rd party becomes a de-facto monopoly, there's no way you could afford to leave money on the table by not also dealing with Apple and Google.

It doesn't at all. You can continue to just publish your apps to the App Store and the Play Store, much as the vast majority of users will continue using those.

Re: App store bill sails out of Senate Judiciary Committee

#174

Post by emsy »

threeseed wrote: post #91
emsy wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have yet to see a downside of this bill that isn’t solved by deleting or not installing offending apps.

Except that you can only do so after you know it is offending. By then the app could've siphoned all of your data.

Don't. Install.

If you think Apple's vetting process is adequate protection, exclusively use their App Store.

Websites can also siphon your data, yet Safari let's me browse the websites unfiltered.

Re: App store bill sails out of Senate Judiciary Committee

#175

Post by Apocryphon »

zepto wrote: post #158
segphault wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If there was a load of cool software that Apple was preventing from coming into existence, Android would be the dominant platform by now, because it would have all the cool stuff. A mobile application that can't be shipped on iOS has a much lower total addressable market, which potentially makes it so that it isn't a commercially-viable undertaking for the developer. When I was working in the mobile space, I saw mo…

Perhaps you can name one such great idea.

Comedy?

https://techcrunch.com/2009/11/07/apple-has-no-sense-of-humo...

Re: App store bill sails out of Senate Judiciary Committee

#176

Post by Mindwipe »

zepto wrote: post #158
segphault wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If there was a load of cool software that Apple was preventing from coming into existence, Android would be the dominant platform by now, because it would have all the cool stuff. A mobile application that can't be shipped on iOS has a much lower total addressable market, which potentially makes it so that it isn't a commercially-viable undertaking for the developer. When I was working in the mobile space, I saw mo…

Perhaps you can name one such great idea.

Fetlife.

Re: App store bill sails out of Senate Judiciary Committee

#177

Post by flutas »

zepto wrote: post #154
keleftheriou wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Android is in fact the dominant platform by number of users, and has cool stuff like cloud gaming apps that iOS does not. There are also other aspects of the iPhone that many people prefer over Android phones, e.g. hardware features and quality. The point about sandboxing is relevant because many people conflate sandboxing protections with the protections offered by App Review, and thus are afraid that non-App Store…

> afraid that non-App Store apps will be able to install viruses or brick their devices - which isn't the case. It absolutely is the case.

> It absolutely is the case.

If that can happen, then that is a security flaw of the device and should be fixed, no?

I mean, reading a text could install a virus on iPhones last year, yet I didn't see people screaming that all texts should have to go through Apple to make sure they aren't a virus.

Re: App store bill sails out of Senate Judiciary Committee

#178

Post by flutas »

olliej wrote: post #135
chomp wrote: post #2

Sudden outbreak of common sense. I hope this passes and forces Google/Apple to justify the value that their app stores provide, for the amount that they take from developers.

No, the value the store provides is the SDK. Just as Unity requires you to license IP, I haven't seen any evidence to suggest that the is going away, only now developers get to bypass sandbox restrictions and access user data. From the users point of view side loading allows only a reduction in security. All those tracking restrictions? App Store submission policy. All those raw data access protections? App Store rej…

> No, the value the store provides is the SDK. Just as Unity requires you to license IP

Except Unity doesn't make the only device that Unity games can run on.

Apple should be making their money from the phones, not seeing the phones as a utility to get even more licensing fees ($99/yr, 30% cut of all payments) from developers.

But also doesn't the $99/yr charged to put apps on the store count as a license, making your Unity example sound even more monopolistic for Apple.

Re: App store bill sails out of Senate Judiciary Committee

#179

Post by zepto »

Apocryphon wrote: post #167
zepto wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You seem to be engaging in magical thinking by imagining that a sandbox can prevent all malware. No serious security researcher would support this claim.

iOS provides many more security protections beyond sandboxing.

So what? It’s clearly not enough on its own.
Post reply on HN