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

App stores, trust and anti-trust

ben-evans.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 94 posts

Re: App stores, trust and anti-trust

#21

Post by thaumasiotes »

benedictevans wrote: post #19
saurik wrote: post #3

> This is a trade-off, but there's a certain kind of person in tech that thinks app stores and the iOS sandbox have nothing to do with the success of smartphones and the iPhone - they're just a stupid Apple thing you could get rid of with no ill effects. > Unfortunately, you can’t have your cake and eat it. A secure system with a switch to turn off the security might work for Linux and a highly technical user, but wh…

I genuinely don't understand this argument. The fact that a platform succeeded despite security holes is not an argument against removing those holes. You might as well say that the malware explosion on Windows wasn't a problem because Windows still did well.

> I genuinely don't understand this argument. The fact that a platform succeeded despite security holes is not an argument against removing those holes.

True enough, but you're just assuming the truth of your argument by using non-neutral words.

The fact that a platform succeeded despite security holes is not an argument against removing those holes.

The fact that a platform succeeded thanks to security holes is an argument against removing those holes.

But how do you know which fact you're looking at?

Re: App stores, trust and anti-trust

#22

Post by vladvasiliu »

bhupy wrote: post #8
jarjoura wrote: post #5

This article is just repeating the same Apple messaging points they've given us. First off, the article's biggest point, the security sandbox, is not the issue at all with the App Store. The entire internet runs inside of a sandbox. Developers understand they must play fair on a device that is shared with other developers. I don't think I've seen anyone complain of this anywhere. However, what Apple has employed its…

> This article is just repeating the same Apple messaging points they've given us. Unrelated, but this is just about my least favorite criticism of an argument. "Messaging points" are used/reused because they're usually the strongest arguments. By pointing this out, you're just saying "this person is just repeating the strongest arguments". Attack the argument, not its provenance!

That's true, but I've read GP's post more along the lines of "we've already heard those arguments and debated them, there's nothing new here".

Just repeating the same arguments (whether they're right or wrong) doesn't really help move the discussion forward...

Re: App stores, trust and anti-trust

#23

Post by [deleted] »

benedictevans wrote: post #18
tempsy wrote: post #7

I don't know why anyone reads Ben Evans - he's a sycophant for big tech who seems to lack the ability to objectively reason about monopoly power.

Well, you clearly don't read anything I write - this piece ends by saying Apple's IAP model is unsustainable and needs to be dismantled, and my previous post said big tech companies are going to become as tightly regulated as banks.

[deleted]

Re: App stores, trust and anti-trust

#24

Post by an_opabinia »

bhupy wrote: post #8
jarjoura wrote: post #5

This article is just repeating the same Apple messaging points they've given us. First off, the article's biggest point, the security sandbox, is not the issue at all with the App Store. The entire internet runs inside of a sandbox. Developers understand they must play fair on a device that is shared with other developers. I don't think I've seen anyone complain of this anywhere. However, what Apple has employed its…

> This article is just repeating the same Apple messaging points they've given us. Unrelated, but this is just about my least favorite criticism of an argument. "Messaging points" are used/reused because they're usually the strongest arguments. By pointing this out, you're just saying "this person is just repeating the strongest arguments". Attack the argument, not its provenance!

I don't know, it would be great if any of these people had bothered talking to a lawyer or an anti-trust scholar, a provenance that would matter a lot to understanding this issue.

For example, almost everyone here will learn more reading "Amazon’s Antitrust Paradox" (https://www.yalelawjournal.org/note/amazons-antitrust-parado...) to understand why Epic set things up the particular, exact way they did - because they got Apple to take down a store page that clearly gave consumers the option to buy something at a lower price.

If you don't want to be prejudiced by educational background, which is reasonable, you can easily tell if a take on the Apple v. Epic case is well-informed by simply Ctrl+F searching "consumer welfare." Additionally if the writer makes the distinction between the legal realism (what will happen, which is that Epic will relist but not sell IAP on the App Store anymore, and the outcome of the case will be non-precedent-forming), the legalism (what should happen, which is that Apple is reducing consumer welfare), and what you hope will happen, which surprisingly, for Ben Evans, I guess Apple makes even more money?

Re: App stores, trust and anti-trust

#25

Post by sa46 »

wayneftw wrote: post #20
benedictevans wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, you clearly don't read anything I write - this piece ends by saying Apple's IAP model is unsustainable and needs to be dismantled, and my previous post said big tech companies are going to become as tightly regulated as banks.

I don't see it. I read it twice and tried searching for "unsustainable" and "dismantle". Could you point out where you said that exactly?

Presumably:

> This second one is instructive: the EU is taking the view that Apple has a monopoly of payment on the iPhone. Market definition is everything. I-am-not-a-lawyer, but I don’t see how Apple can win on Spotify (or Kindle), and I don’t think it should.

And the final sentence:

> Apple finally won the argument with users’ wallets, and that means it’s not niche anymore - Apple has become the navy, and different rules apply.

Re: App stores, trust and anti-trust

#26

Post by ratww »

mrtksn wrote: post #14
threatofrain wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is already similar to Apple’s approach, as you can notice tabs refreshing and losing data when you come back to it.

I don’t notice such a thing. How can I reproduce it? What OS and browser?

iOS and macOS Safari.

In iOS it's mostly when you have a lot of things open and too little memory. In macOS they don't reload (or maybe it's rare) but they do sleep. But it's very hard to notice.

Re: App stores, trust and anti-trust

#27

Post by tempsy »

sa46 wrote: post #25
wayneftw wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't see it. I read it twice and tried searching for "unsustainable" and "dismantle". Could you point out where you said that exactly?

Presumably: > This second one is instructive: the EU is taking the view that Apple has a monopoly of payment on the iPhone. Market definition is everything. I-am-not-a-lawyer, but I don’t see how Apple can win on Spotify (or Kindle), and I don’t think it should. And the final sentence: > Apple finally won the argument with users’ wallets, and that means it’s not niche anymore - Apple has become the navy, and differen…

that doesn’t read “needs to be dismantled” at all

Re: App stores, trust and anti-trust

#29

Post by coldtea »

vladvasiliu wrote: post #22
bhupy wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This article is just repeating the same Apple messaging points they've given us. Unrelated, but this is just about my least favorite criticism of an argument. "Messaging points" are used/reused because they're usually the strongest arguments. By pointing this out, you're just saying "this person is just repeating the strongest arguments". Attack the argument, not its provenance!

That's true, but I've read GP's post more along the lines of "we've already heard those arguments and debated them, there's nothing new here". Just repeating the same arguments (whether they're right or wrong) doesn't really help move the discussion forward...

The post can be a recap though or targeted at the general audience, not to us who "heard those arguments" before.
Post reply on HN