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

Rethinking the App Store

stratechery.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

221–230 of 350 posts

Re: Rethinking the App Store

#221

Post by ardy42 »

simonh wrote: post #168
ardy42 wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> So now the US government and the EU will be making legislation that specifies phone APIs and designs user interfaces. Great! They already do. For instance Microsoft was forced to create BrowserChoice.eu because of an antitrust case. GDPR puts requirements on user interfaces for personal data collection. I'm not aware of similar US examples (except maybe the aforementioned COPPA), but I know US law specifies form de…

Those are incredibly minimal requirements, basically equivalent to labelling restrictions on food. They're nothing like specifying a detailed spec for application delivery, permissioning, resource access, background update orchestration, UI design for installers and update management etc, etc. And yes this would have to be mandated, otherwise it would leave gaps for vendor implementation abuse. Remember Apple doesn't…

> Those are incredibly minimal requirements, basically equivalent to labelling restrictions on food. They're nothing like specifying a detailed spec for application delivery, permissioning, resource access, background update orchestration, UI design for installers and update management etc, etc. And yes this would have to be mandated, otherwise it would leave gaps for vendor implementation abuse. Remember Apple doesn't want to do this at all.

You're moving the goalposts, you originally said:

>>>>> The problem with this is that it would be putting an obligation on Apple to design and implement APIs it doesn't want to create or support, and implement features it disagrees with.

The way this usually works is that the regulators/legislators would come up with relatively high level requirements [1] and Apple would have to figure out the design details to meet them. If their detailed design fails to meet or subverts the high level requirements, then they will be forced to defend their actions in court, where "we don't want to do it" isn't a defense.

[1] Which hypothetically could be as simple as 1) users must have the option to install 3rd party app stores on their devices, 2) 3rd party app stores may not be technically disadvantaged compared to the 1st party store, and 3) maybe some requirements around revenue or cost sharing.

> On your last point, not if you take away the two primary pillars of it's profitability - exclusive payments processing and store exclusivity. Revenues would collapse, which after all is the point of doing all of this, and they'd lose control of the platform.

Explain to me why Apple hasn't abandoned the Mac OS platform for those same reasons, since it doesn't have the "exclusive payments processing and store exclusivity" that you seem to think are so essential.

Re: Rethinking the App Store

#222

Post by whakim »

Spivak wrote: post #218
whakim wrote: post #191

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree, but Apple will never go for this unless forced to for obvious reasons. As a cross-platform developer, the degree to which Apple has scrutinized our app and made sure there's not so much as a hint of the fact that you can buy the product on the web is totally nuts.

I mean it's not exactly crazy, if Apple gave any ground in this department you would see every app desperately trying to push their users off-app for a sale.

In our particular case we had features that didn't exist in the app (for various reasons, including some that just didn't make sense on a phone). We weren't allowed to mention that those features existed, god forbid link to them on the web, because someone might subscribe that way instead.

Re: Rethinking the App Store

#223

Post by supermatt »

rarepostinlurkr wrote: post #207
supermatt wrote: post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is no reason for "root access". An API call to install a packaged app in a sandbox, and update apps that are installed is all that you would require. Apps would be consistently installed to a sandbox identified by their bundle identifier (which is typically domain-based). This is effectively what already happens on iOS. App certification/verification would be done using exactly the same certs we use for domains…

> For me the biggest problem is Apple deciding what/whose apps ios (and macos, given the recent code signing requirements coming with mac silicon...) users are permitted to use. Thats FUD. The release notes even address it "This new behavior doesn’t change the long-established policy that our users and developers can run arbitrary code on their Macs, and is designed to simplify the execution policies on Apple silicon…

Arbitrary code, not binaries. You can run arbitrary code through a compiler (which gets signed automatically when it gets linked) and then run it, or you can run arbitrary code through an (already signed) interpreter.

You CANNOT run an unsigned binary on silicon, but I totally understand your confusion given their statement.

Edit: To clarify further, you cant run an ARM binary - x86 apps going through rosetta (currently) work as they used to (right click and you can open).

Re: Rethinking the App Store

#224

Post by charwalker »

throwaway13337 wrote: post #68
nickflood wrote: post #28

Note how many sources wanted to stay anonymous "for fear of upsetting Apple". Apple knows they can end businesses with the click of a finger. That's what they tried to do by ending the dev license for Unreal Engine. And Apple wants everybody to know that they know. I'm almost certain that the Unreal Dev license revocation is a result of a similar email chain as what happened to Kindle - https://www.macrumors.com/2020…

Epic isn't the hero we need but the hero we deserve. I can certainly imagine a lot of companies are tight-lipped about it. My livelihood depends on an app store and so I'm super cautious about what I say publicly about the company that controls it. This sort of chilling effect is scary and should rightly be contested. Epic is criticized for being a huge company themselves and using that as leverage in their legal bat…

I'll root for them once they stop pushing exclusives (paid for monopoly on distribution rights) vs steam/etc. It isn't the same issue but it's close enough that I find it ironic they are complaining about a monopoly store while trying to compete against Steam/etc by buying a monopoly on a game at least during the first 6 months of release.

Re: Rethinking the App Store

#225

Post by simonh »

the_other wrote: post #206
simonh wrote: post #171

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Accessibility UIs that are designed by committee and set in stone. No innovation allowed, by law. Gah, ironically Apple's platforms have the best accessibility in the industry regardless of legislation. They pretty much always have.

Disability legislation doesn’t design solutions: it provides requirements which are inputs into your design process. The solutions are up to you.

I was replying to a post explicitly suggesting that the APIs and UI for accessibility should be standardised. In that context I think trying to refute, er, the suggestion actualy being made, is reasonable.

Re: Rethinking the App Store

#226

Post by baddox »

saagarjha wrote: post #219
baddox wrote: post #210

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most of them probably did, because it was generally difficult to jailbreak the phone and there wasn't much reason to do so unless you were a hobbyist. App piracy was definitely a thing though, and I bet there were some people who did it because a friend told them they can get free apps, only to end up installing stuff that made the phone very buggy (which was definitely easy to do). It's easy to say "well that's just…

Jailbreaking used to be as easy as going to a website and clicking "jailbreak".

Yes, there was one family of jailbreaks that worked like that, but you'd still need to hear about that and have some reason to want to do it to your phone, and I suspect a very small portion of iPhone owners did that. It would be a lot worse if Apple were forced to allow anyone to make what are essentially jailbreak app stores like Cydia, then one of the biggest video games ever told all their players to go install that so that the video game company can sell digital items at higher margins.

Re: Rethinking the App Store

#227

Post by benologist »

nemothekid wrote: post #172
dkersten wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree with this. The only winners in the current situation are Apple. By opening it up to competitor app stores, yes competitors would benefit, but so would developers and so would their users. The App Store as it stands has completely stagnated to the point where it’s useless to me outside of actually downloading or buying an app. It’s been years since I’ve been able to discover new apps though it, now relying for…

> The only winners in the current situation are Apple. By opening it up to competitor app stores, yes competitors would benefit, but so would developers and so would their users. It's hard for me to reconcile this, and I keep seeing that 3rd party app stores would be better for users, but it all seems very handwavy. You would think this would be an easy point to prove as Android has had alternative app stores for yea…

If it's done correctly we will be able to install apps from anywhere, like just selecting the iOS build on GitHub. There is no inherent need for anyone to be gatekeeping and observing the software we install and use, just sandbox it and throw up a warning.

If we could install apps from Github it would be better because predatory pricing and invasive data collection has the upper hand on the iOS store. Many common utilities are charging ridiculous amounts of money that they could never charge on Mac or Windows because of high quality, free and open source software on Github.

Re: Rethinking the App Store

#229

Post by yungstevejobs »

benologist wrote: post #165
frenchyatwork wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Another big problem with the App Store is that there are so many requirements (can't be too much like something Apple made, can't be too much like a web app) and these rules are inconsistently and arbitrarily applied.

I like how apps cannot include sexual, violent or offensive content but Apple Music and Netflix can.

? Pretty sure Reddit and Twitter include sexual and violent content. The guideline you’re referring to states that an app shouldn’t solely be used to access pornographic content and services. Last time I checked none of the apps you and I mentioned are used exclusively for porn or violent content

Re: Rethinking the App Store

#230

Post by yyyk »

bogwog wrote: post #216
yyyk wrote: post #188

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In Windows the old method was installing exe files, and it remains the most popular - but otherwise the only app store worth mentioning is the MS one (on Steam in a moment). In Linux, package managers can and do include other apps (not all of course), and just about everything that can be installed from them gets priority from users - and alternative repos get the scraps. The option isn't hidden on android at all, it…

> The option isn't hidden on android at all, it's dead simple. There's a warning dialog, but I can live with that. I can't. If I'm going to distribute my apps outside of Google Play, I need to tell my potential customers to crawl through their phone's settings page, clicking through various menus, then ignore the scary warnings that strongly imply I'm about to infect them with malware and steal all of their personal…

I guess I'm so used to dismissing the "Play Protect" dialog I completely forgot about it, you're right about it, it is annoying. But I think asking the user to signal agreement before installing and especially allowing another app store is the right way, given how sensitive it is. Maybe it should be made easier, but it's far less onerous than the Apple case.

Steam doesn't do the API review/sandboxing component of App Stores. An installed game technically has access to everything. Even Linux packaging has API review (due to open source) and modern packaging often has integration with AppArmor/SELinux. Steam are essential for Linux gaming, but I wish they improved their deployment to be more secure.

Post reply on HN