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

How Apple's Apps Topped Rivals in the App Store It Controls

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

181–190 of 215 posts

Re: How Apple's Apps Topped Rivals in the App Store It Controls

#181

Post by esmi »

pier25 wrote: post #125

It's fine, it's their App Store and they can do whatever they want IMO. What's not fine is not being able to install a third party App Store with different policies so that users can choose whatever they prefer.

Just out of curiosity, how do you imagine that would work in the real world?

Apple's main thing is security, and one important aspect of how they achieve it is by only allowing signed code, which Apple also does some basic tests on, to be installed on the device. Many think this is a valuable service.

In the third party App Store scenario, does the developer still submit an app to Apple for approval? How does Apple then make the approved app available to the third party? How is this different from a website that gives App recommendations?

Re: How Apple's Apps Topped Rivals in the App Store It Controls

#182

Post by saagarjha »

thorwasdfasdf wrote: post #167

the app store is such a mess. Even finding something as simple as a good running app that stores and shows your weekly mileage is a huge challenge. All the top apps are terrible or missing the crucial weekly mileage feature or aren't free. Google search is equally terrible because they only show reviews from sites with super high "domain authority", or whatever, all i know is i get the same damn site results over and…

> shows your weekly mileage

Health shows this, so if your app integrates with that you may not need to see it in-app.

Re: How Apple's Apps Topped Rivals in the App Store It Controls

#183

Post by kitsunesoba »

Wowfunhappy wrote: post #141
wil421 wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I had an Android a few years ago and #2 was a big issue. AT&T installed all types of apps including an automatic WiFi connecting app. I had to flash a google image to get rid of it. I’d be driving down the road and my maps or other apps would lose connections. Turns out I was being forced to connect to AT&T stores and Starbucks at red lights (anywhere attwifi was detected). Not to mention all the Samsung bloatware.

Two points: 1. Granting more permissions to third party apps won't cause the iPhone to ship with Samsung bloatware. 2. I'm not necessarily advocating for 3rd party app privileges to be significantly expanded. However, Apple's own apps should mostly play by the same rules. If they can't, that's a sign the rules are too restrictive.

New app permissions must be added judiciously, as it’s been proven time and time again that developers can and will abuse them in whatever ways they can, including training and desensitizing users if necessary.

Apple tends to open capabilities up once they’re confident they’ve been able to make them reasonably airtight against abuse. That seems like a very sensible policy to me, even if it means that certain features come at a glacial pace.

Re: How Apple's Apps Topped Rivals in the App Store It Controls

#185

Post by yyyk »

gimmeThaBeet wrote: post #110

I wouldn't say I have trouble considering this issue, I know what my opinion is. The ramifications feel uncomfortable because Apple is the Goliath, it feels bizarre their behavior should need defending. The idea I get hung up on is Apple doesn't control the market, they control access to the customers companies want. And those customers made a free choice to enter apple's ecosystem. They could get an Android, they co…

IMHO, It should be more than that.

Apple does not control a market, but it controls a marketplace. Perhaps the fact that Apple's marketplace isn't the largest by most measures allows it to set rather market-fixing terms to the stalls it allows others to put in it, perhaps that's ok.

But once the other stalls paid their legal due to the marketplace owner (i.e. assented to the various terms, as unfair they may be), they and the customers have a justified expectation that competition would be fair from now on - the default is fair and free competition, and inasmuch as the other stalls haven't signed their rights off, these must be respected.

Now if the marketplace owner would then put in further roadblocks to make the other stalls hard to find and his stalls easy to find, despite that not being in the original terms, that should be not legal. As far as I know, nowhere did Apple reserve the 'right' to hide other due-paying apps and promote its own in searches.

For that alone, Apple's behaviour should be banned outright, even if it is their marketplace. If Apple can constantly alter the deal, than no stall or customer can be safe. The long term process would then be in favour of eliminating competition, both internally in Apple's marketplace, and in general as vendors flee to the largest marketplace since it is regulated by law. That's not in the public interest at all.

Re: How Apple's Apps Topped Rivals in the App Store It Controls

#186

Post by Wowfunhappy »

kitsunesoba wrote: post #183
Wowfunhappy wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Two points: 1. Granting more permissions to third party apps won't cause the iPhone to ship with Samsung bloatware. 2. I'm not necessarily advocating for 3rd party app privileges to be significantly expanded. However, Apple's own apps should mostly play by the same rules. If they can't, that's a sign the rules are too restrictive.

New app permissions must be added judiciously, as it’s been proven time and time again that developers can and will abuse them in whatever ways they can, including training and desensitizing users if necessary. Apple tends to open capabilities up once they’re confident they’ve been able to make them reasonably airtight against abuse. That seems like a very sensible policy to me, even if it means that certain features…

Okay, but then Apple shouldn't use them in their own apps either.

Re: How Apple's Apps Topped Rivals in the App Store It Controls

#187

Post by kitsunesoba »

Wowfunhappy wrote: post #186
kitsunesoba wrote: post #183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

New app permissions must be added judiciously, as it’s been proven time and time again that developers can and will abuse them in whatever ways they can, including training and desensitizing users if necessary. Apple tends to open capabilities up once they’re confident they’ve been able to make them reasonably airtight against abuse. That seems like a very sensible policy to me, even if it means that certain features…

Okay, but then Apple shouldn't use them in their own apps either.

But then Apple is not only putting themselves at a disadvantage against other platforms for long stretches of time (“iOS can do that with Apple stuff” is better than “iOS can’t do that”), but also giving up their ability to dogfood new APIs and test them in a much larger capacity than even a public beta would allow.

In order to remain competitive, they’d be forced to release half-baked/under-tested APIs, which is never good. That’s exactly how the Android developer story got as bad as it did at its lowest points.

Re: How Apple's Apps Topped Rivals in the App Store It Controls

#188

Post by damnyou »

coldtea wrote: post #160
damnyou wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Of course it's relevant. A definition of monopoly that only relies on raw unit numbers is obviously incomplete. Antitrust is about power , and Apple has a lot of it.

> Of course it's relevant. A definition of monopoly that only relies on raw unit numbers is obviously incomplete. We don't get to pick our "complete" definition we prefer because "we deserve free money/mobile platform access". There's an actual, legal, one... > Antitrust is about power, and Apple has a lot of it. Only in the same sense that McDonalds has power not to sell Burger King burgers, and a shop owner has own…

The legal definition of antitrust has changed over time and can change again, especially if Warren becomes president.

Re: How Apple's Apps Topped Rivals in the App Store It Controls

#189

Post by snowwrestler »

benologist wrote: post #70
frogpelt wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I see it differently. Since Apple makes the hardware and the software I don't have a problem with them preinstalling their own products. However, when a user is clearly searching for alternatives on the app store, it matters how far down you have to scroll to find a 3rd party app. Spotify being the 23rd result for a "music" search is absurd.

I see it differently. Way back when Microsoft shipped Internet Explorer with Windows it ruined companies. We see companies being arbitrarily ruined by Apple's actions every month. This platform abuse triggered massive antitrust actions in the US and EU that Microsoft lost quite spectacularly, costing them a fortune and forcing many changes to their software. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Browser_wars

Microsoft shipping IE in Windows did not ruin companies.

What ruined companies (and what MS was actually prosecuted for) was Microsoft telling PC manufacturers "we will only sell you Windows OS if you agree to NOT install any other browsers on your computers." Those agreements were how MS abused their OS monopoly to wrongfully exclude other browsers from the market. Up to that point, Netscape was selling their browser direct to Dell, HP, Gateway, etc. to be preloaded on machines they sold.

Microsoft was a supplier to PC companies and the market they distorted was the software supplier market. Apple themselves are the device manufacturer and have under 50% share in that market; it's not a comparable situation.

Re: How Apple's Apps Topped Rivals in the App Store It Controls

#190

Post by zaroth »

henryfjordan wrote: post #173
zaroth wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How can it possibly be an anti-trust issue for a minority player in a competitive market to choose which products to display in their own retail store? This is markedly different then, for example, Google altering search results to promote their own products, because Google owns something like 90% of Search.

An Android app and an iPhone app are not compatible goods. You cannot replace one with the other. Try installing an APK on the iphone and let me know how that goes. The "market" is smaller than you think. A classic way to determine alternatives to a product is by asking "if I raise the price of all apps, how many people will buy something else?" Iphone owners are kinda stuck eating the increase, aren't they? Apple co…

Every manufacturer controls their own supply chain, and can choose what to put in or take out of their own product.

And everyone makes a choice when they purchase a product— you could say invest in a product—if they want to buy into that.

Of course it costs money to buy something different. The salient point is that there is a obvious and competitive choice before you buy, that Apple does nothing to restrict you from making that choice before you buy, and that you can switch if you feel like it, which makes it not a monopoly.

Monopoly is not defined as the lack of compatibility between two competing products. Monopoly is also not defined as having a closed ecosystem.

I think it’s fair to argue if you think it should be illegal to have closed ecosystems. Personally I strongly disagree because there are clear trade-offs involved and the market should be able to decide if it wants a closed ecosystem product offering from Vendor A or an open ecosystem offering from Vendor B.

The problem with a closed ecosystem is when it is combined with a monopolistic market. In this discussion I believed the two points have become conflated, but while Apple certainly has a walled garden, there is compelling evidence the smartphone market is highly competitive.

Post reply on HN