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

231–240 of 350 posts

Re: Rethinking the App Store

#231

Post by contingencies »

simonh wrote: post #18
cblconfederate wrote: post #2

In other news, i wonder why ios app developers aren't considered apple's employees? In fact someone could sue apple to force them to do so. Their developer guidelines are so strict and hands-on that they don't justify them being used as "gig workers". And apple's statements in this document make the emphatic point that they use those developers to deliver an excellent experience. They even provide their paycheck (and…

App developers choose when they work, how they do the work and how much they charge, which are the main indicators of an independent. The main argument against Uber was that drivers can't negotiate on price/pay, but clearly app developers set the price of their apps and IAP.

They can't choose the cost of the hardware (typically mobile plus desktop = USD$1000s), the cost of the developer membership (annual recurring), or the percentage take given to Apple.

Re: Rethinking the App Store

#232

Post by auggierose »

the_other wrote: post #204
auggierose wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think that's pretty bad. A development shop shouldn't be forced to follow all sorts of accessibility requirements.

As a disabled person, I’m forced to disagree. Most disability is social: activities are hard to perform not due to physical limitation (although this has some effect), but because social constructs and practices obstruct access.

It depends on the kind of software. Should games be required to be accessible? I don't think so. Should banking apps be required to be accessible? That probably depends on the size of the bank. Should software used for accessing government services be accessible? Of course.

I don't think a law forcing all software to be accessible makes any kind of sense.

Re: Rethinking the App Store

#233

Post by sbuk »

jasode wrote: post #220
sbuk wrote: post #212

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is a huge difference here; there was never a legal issue with bundling IE. The problem was that MSFT threatened to withdraw OEM licensing for companies that bundled alternative browsers with Windows. Monopoly wasn't the issue. Abusing the monopoly (desktop OS) to leverage influence on another market segment (web browsers) is what go them into trouble.

>; there was never a legal issue with bundling IE. I suppose 20+ years has erased a collective memory of the conflicts with IE. Here is a relevant 1998 excerpt[1] from DOJ's own official website: >The Department today filed a motion seeking a preliminary injunction that would: >-- Require that if Microsoft insists on including its browser on Windows 98, it must also include Netscape's browser so that consumers will h…

Context. Relevant part from your link:

Microsoft unlawfully required PC manufacturers to agree to license and install its browser, Internet Explorer, as a condition of obtaining licenses for the Windows 95 operating system.

Re: Rethinking the App Store

#234

Post by radley »

ryanbrunner wrote: post #75
jbverschoor wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Emm. no thank you. History has shown that it will be abused. Also, the curation makes sure, or at least does their best effort, to catch phishing screens etc. Payments/wallet for example require the lock button. You can't mimic that. The App Store and iOS lockdown are one of the biggest reasons I'm on Apple devices. On macOS, I think there should be even more sandboxing and process separation. 30% might be a bit too…

It's easy to just not use non-Apple app stores though. That's the current state of things on Google, where other app stores are allowed but the vast majority of people just use Google. If you personally value security and a smooth user experience over being able to install whatever you want go for it, no one would ever force you to use another app store.

> on Google, where other app stores are allowed but the vast majority of people just use Google... no one would ever force you to use another app store.

Google implemented several hurdles to drive users away from competitive app stores. They're all but forcing people to use the Play Store.

Re: Rethinking the App Store

#235

Post by benologist »

yungstevejobs wrote: post #229
benologist wrote: post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

The carve-out is for user-generated content but Netflix and Apple Music are not user-generated content and they do not even try to meet the requirements imposed on UGC.

https://developer.apple.com/app-store/review/guidelines/

If they're not UGC then they're violating rule 1.1 -

> Apps should not include content that is offensive, insensitive, upsetting, intended to disgust, in exceptionally poor taste, or just plain creepy.

HBO certainly are not UGC, yet the HBO app was allowed nudity as a prelude to people having sex many times in Game of Thrones. Rule 1.1.4 -

> Overtly sexual or pornographic material, defined by Webster’s Dictionary as "explicit descriptions or displays of sexual organs or activities intended to stimulate erotic rather than aesthetic or emotional feelings

Re: Rethinking the App Store

#236

Post by pwinnski »

gwd wrote: post #174
pwinnski wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have definitely come around on this. I can see a case for making adding a third-party story cumbersome, and having Apple still control the "certificates," let's say, for each store, but yes, I agree, there need to be alternatives. It still seems awkward to say that Apple must allow for competitors, but they're a $2 trillion company now, and I think rules are just weird for companies of that size.

> It still seems awkward to say that Apple must allow for competitors, but they're a $2 trillion company now, and I think rules are just weird for companies of that size. Apple only controls 14% of the smartphone market. If Apple is a $2T company, doesn't that mean those 14% of people overall approve of what Apple is doing? I certainly think some of the restrictions are onerous; but if I had to choose between "Some o…

Keep in mind, I've basically shift on this within the last day or two, so my thinking is possibly still underbaked when it comes to "the other side." But I think you might be making the mistake of thinking that since Apple does A, B, and C, and they have the safest/best experience, therefore A, B, and C are necessary for them to continue to have the safest/best experience.

I can see a world, for example, in which Apple approves a very-limited number of alternate app stores, each of which must still give Apple 30% of what they make from every transaction. So a $1 purchase in Apple's App Store gives them 30 cents, while a $1 purchase in Epic's App Store gives Epic 14 cents, and Apple 6 cents (30% of the 20 cents the ultimate developer doesn't get).

Would that mean Apple would go broke? I don't think so. Would Epic find that it's harder to make things work on 14% than they'd estimated? Could be: they gave up going indie over on Android already. Would I be forced to use the alternate App Store? I suspect only for apps excluded from Apple's App Store, because what developer would want to give up on that revenue?

> Right now, if you don't like what Apple's doing, you can choose not to do with Apple; and if I do, I can choose to go with them

I think the reasoning here misses the point. If Apple were doing something truly dastardly, inarguably evil, would this argument still apply? It's not trivial to switch platforms, though it is possible. And "Apple's way or the highway" shouldn't give them a license to do whatever they want to, no matter what.

I hope that whatever is decided in court, I am able to stick with the Apple experience I know and appreciate. But maybe also I want to use one of the several game-streaming services that Apple will not allow. Must I buy an Android tablet to use Stadia? How much other innovation is currently not happening, or are unavailable to iOS users because of Apple's App Store restrictions?

Re: Rethinking the App Store

#237

Post by emsy »

charwalker wrote: post #224
throwaway13337 wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It’s not even close. Apple is forcing developers how they can reach their customer. Epic deals are made by developers with regards to how they want to reach their customers. They are both uncomfortable for some customers, but that is not the issue. Let’s say you utterly dislike Wal Mart and your favorite ice cream is exclusively available there because Wal Mart struck a deal with the maker (e.g. they’ll fund them). That’s not the same as Wal Mart forcing the ice cream vendor to sell exclusively to Wal Mart because otherwise the item will be banned from the shelves, which results in a huge loss in customer reach, thus abusing their market position.

Re: Rethinking the App Store

#238

Post by pwinnski »

bluesign wrote: post #40
supermatt wrote: post #13

I am of the opinion that the only fair option is to allow 3rd party stores with the same permissions as the official app store. Apples curation isn't (as they suggest) preventing malware, theft of information, etc - this if verifiably false given recent history with apps like tiktok stealing clipboard content. The ability to change content of payment screens post-approval (as epic have just done) also means that cura…

Having 3rd party stores will be net negative for me as a user. Currently I have trust to Apple, if I am or my kid charged wrong or tricked into some subscription etc, I have proof with experience that Apple will fix it. Now let’s say if we have many stores, some stores will try to be smart, will make exclusive deals, force people to install their stores to maybe play a one popular game. As a user I will end up with 1…

Epic took Fortnite out of Google's Play Store because they wanted to stop giving Google 30% of all transactions. After a few months, they put it back in.

Very, very, very few developers are going to avoid Apple's App Store deliberately. It just doesn't make economic sense. Game-streaming services don't have a choice, of course.

Re: Rethinking the App Store

#239

Post by pwinnski »

sjwright wrote: post #123
dannyr wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Having 3rd party stores will be net negative for me as a user. Having 3rd party stores will not prevent you for using the Apple App Store exclusively. > As a user I will end up with 10 stores on my phone, each has my billing information, Imagine if there is only 1 store, e.g. Walmart? Only Walmart has your billing information and it's the only store where you can buy things. > Now let’s say if we have many stores T…

> Having 3rd party stores will not prevent you for using the Apple App Store exclusively. It will if enough developers flee to whichever store has the cheapest rate and the fewest restrictions. It’s a race to the bottom and the consumer ultimately loses.

Keeping 90% of a tiny pile of money is usually not a better deal than keeping 70% of a large pile of money.

Cydia has existed for ages, and yet Apple's own App Store is still the undisputed market leader.

I'm having trouble envisioning a scenario in which consumers lose here.

Re: Rethinking the App Store

#240

Post by pwinnski »

kitsunesoba wrote: post #186
sjwright wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Having 3rd party stores will not prevent you for using the Apple App Store exclusively. It will if enough developers flee to whichever store has the cheapest rate and the fewest restrictions. It’s a race to the bottom and the consumer ultimately loses.

Exactly, as a user I'm not going to be happy if I have to resort to using an unscrupulous third party App Store with fewer privacy restrictions in order to get the app I need. There's also the possibility of mobile equivalents to the Adobe CC installer/manager that act as their own "App Store" and aren't subject to any rules at all, which is even worse. After seeing what the likes of Adobe does on desktop PCs, I do n…

Allowing alternate sources of apps is not at all the same thing as allowing apps to do whatever they wish on your device. iOS apps would still be sandboxed and heavily restricted. In-app privacy would be unchanged.

Apple should have the ability to "shut off" unscrupulous third-party App Stores just as they do today with unscrupulous developers.

Adobe would find it tough going if they withdrew from Apple's App Store, and I can't imagine keeping 30% minus whatever it costs to provide an alternative would be worth it to the, given how many people would just stop using Adobe apps.

Post reply on HN