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

221–230 of 437 posts

Re: App store bill sails out of Senate Judiciary Committee

#221

Post by kitsunesoba »

Dig1t wrote: post #197

I'd bet $20 that Google (and probably Amazon) has started or will start working on an App Store for iOS. If either of them use their dark patterns to get people to install their app stores then this could be a different situation than what's happening on Android, where very few users actually side load apps. With the weight of one of these giants they could really get massive adoption on iOS in an alternative store.

Facebook is probably planning on doing this too, and they will probably use much more lax privacy standards along with other things to bait developers over.

They have enough of their own powerhouse apps to make their store happen too, which is scary. All they have to do is say that the only way to get Facebook Messenger and WhatsApp is through the Meta Store and they have a huge audience overnight.

Re: App store bill sails out of Senate Judiciary Committee

#222

Post by gpm »

keleftheriou wrote: post #56
zepto wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Quoted post unavailable.

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…

And the hardware quality and features aren't things that android can just copy, because Apple has numerous government enforced monopolies on their technology called patents. This isn't a free market.

Re: App store bill sails out of Senate Judiciary Committee

#223

Post by monopoliessuck »

dangus wrote: post #194
monopoliessuck wrote: post #93

I blame consumers for the duopoly we have. I get that practically, it's a farce to call this choice we have real and significant but these marketplaces exist because of the demand. Making this duopoly more convenient for app-makers only kicks the can and further re-enforces the duopoly. In an ideal world, people would fund projects like the PinePhone or PostMarketOS, but our "solution" to the walled-garden is apparen…

Blame the consumer? Uh, no. You're bringing up non-profit projects as proof that consumers aren't doing the right thing. But, don't forget, there used to be a highly competitive commercial smartphone market until the competition was whittled down through acquisitions and exits. Microsoft, Blackberry, Palm, Apple, Nokia, and Android all had their own smartphone OS simultaneously for a brief moment in time. Consumers c…

I think you're moving goal posts. Not all problems with our market are the result of simple consolidation of market leaders.

Put simply, don't buy products that lock you in if you don't want products to lock you in. It seems like consumers are capable of making decisions based on price, durability, features, color etc. why is any other variable sacred?

The answer is consumers don't care about these issues enough to pay for them. Would we have this right-to-repair argument if consumers went out of their way to buy repairable devices? Lenovo, Apple, Google, et. al. have been moving to solder more and more components to the board and glue everything together and consumers haven't punished these producers with their wallets yet. If you want a repairable device, buy one -- this isn't a consolidation problem. If you want a phone that you can run a different OS on, buy one. If you want a red toothbrush, don't buy a blue one and complain (or make a law) that it should be red.

Pine64 is a for-profit entity. If you want a repairable phone that you can side-load anything on, maybe give your money to them instead of Google-Apple. Likewise, if you want a repairable laptop maybe buy a Librem 14 instead of an MacBook. Maybe if you want an open hardware ePub reader buy an InkPlate instead of a Kindle. These things exist and more would exist -- with more polish -- if people voted with their wallets. These are real companies trying to make real money with real products for real people.

The smart phone operating systems you listed would have flourished if more people purchased their respective devices. You can't install Sony's OS on an XBOX and while I don't purchase consoles and think buying a single-purpose gimped device is almost always a bad idea, if people want to buy what XBOX is selling, so be it. Apple consumers are not left in the dark about their ability to use an alternative app store and while I think it's a horribly limiting experience, Apple consumers keep throwing money at the company.

I'm not just blaming the consumer. I'm also stating that the consumer is a vital part of the market and their action or inaction results in a market more aligned with those decisions.

Re: App store bill sails out of Senate Judiciary Committee

#224

Post by rvz »

fartcannon wrote: post #187
zepto wrote: post #183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you want F-Droid, Apple isn’t stopping you.

Yeah they are.

No they are not. One can write / use a progressive web app and have the app installed and running without the need of an App Store at all.

Re: App store bill sails out of Senate Judiciary Committee

#225

Post by chacham15 »

guerrilla wrote: post #191

Would this allow alternative browser emgines on iOS?

Yes it would. "Access to operating system interfaces, development information, and hardware and software features shall be provided to developers on a timely basis and on terms that are equivalent or functionally-equivalent to the terms for access by similar Apps or functions provided by the Covered Company or to its business partners."[0] means that anything a native app can do should be possible to do from a third party app.

[0]https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/senate-bill/271...

Re: App store bill sails out of Senate Judiciary Committee

#226

Post by Larrikin »

toqy wrote: post #220
warning26 wrote: post #214

Good. At the very least, people should be allowed to install browsers that aren't Safari.

If Chrome’s battery drain vs Safari on MacOS is an indication of how it’ll be on iOS then I’ll pass

Chrome versus safari is ignoring the much better choice of Firefox with extensions.

Re: App store bill sails out of Senate Judiciary Committee

#227

Post by Spivak »

dskloet wrote: post #98
nerdjon wrote: post #69

As long as this does not cause an exodus from the App Store and I am forced to start paying for apps directly, I am fine with this. But a strong benefit to the App Store for me is being able to manage and cancel my subscriptions from a central place. No going through 5 screens, no being forced to call, no any of that crap. I can already see apps refusing to carry through the App Store so they can control more, and I…

Just curious, would you pay 40% more for the convenience of being able to cancel in one place?

Of course not, I also wouldn't pay 20-40% more for free two day shipping or 30% more for free food delivery over $12, but nonetheless Amazon and DoorDash are able to take that much of a cut from sellers and restaurants.

You miss the fundamental thing which is that the charge is specifically for publishers for a reason. It's because it absolutely is worth 30% to every business who wants to reach a lucrative market.

Re: App store bill sails out of Senate Judiciary Committee

#228

Post by Spivak »

emsy wrote: post #66
DannyBee wrote: post #65

One downside (as a consumer) of this bill is that it requires app store owners to allow spamming users "A Covered Company shall not impose restrictions on communications of developers with the users of the App through an App or direct outreach to a user concerning legitimate business offers, such as pricing terms and product or service offerings." Yay, more spam (probably all starting with "Dear user, we have a legit…

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

Because software isn't fungible and "doesn't spam" isn't a differentiating feature so it costs apps nothing to do it.

Re: App store bill sails out of Senate Judiciary Committee

#229

Post by toqy »

Larrikin wrote: post #226
toqy wrote: post #220

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If Chrome’s battery drain vs Safari on MacOS is an indication of how it’ll be on iOS then I’ll pass

Chrome versus safari is ignoring the much better choice of Firefox with extensions.

Firefox battery on macos is also bad, so same argument. Their market share on android vs chrome isn’t worth mentioning, so I don’t even know that it’s a better choice.

Re: App store bill sails out of Senate Judiciary Committee

#230

Post by mullingitover »

tragictrash wrote: post #195
zepto wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And they can. Nothing prevents that. If you think it does, you’ve been lied to.

Not true. Apple places a 7 day limit on developer mode side loaded apps when using a free account. Sorry to link to Reddit https://www.reddit.com/r/sideloaded/comments/8ht5uy/question...

It'd be pretty trivial to throw together some automation that reinstalls your sideloaded apps nightly.
Post reply on HN