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

271–280 of 437 posts

Re: App store bill sails out of Senate Judiciary Committee

#271

Post by Larrikin »

Does this bill meaningfully impact Android users in anyway. Alternative app stores, alternative payments, side loading have all existed for years. The article claims Apple and Google are both opposed to the bill but doesn't really say why.

I can only think of a couple.

Potentially opening up of services like notifications so that apps that don't have play services can get notifications without destroying the users battery.

Disabling or neutering of the awful SDK banking apps and games use to detect root and not run.

They're small but annoying things but hopefully are outcomes from this bill.

Re: App store bill sails out of Senate Judiciary Committee

#272

Post by notyourwork »

andrewjl wrote: post #83
notyourwork wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Where is Apples incentive to leave it centralized if they cannot siphon as much money from the pipe?

Highly profitable hardware sales? There are also many others.

I buy my iPhone for the hardware, not the app store.

Re: App store bill sails out of Senate Judiciary Committee

#273

Post by javajosh »

dodobirdlord wrote: post #262
javajosh wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are in luck! Another way to manage subscriptions client side is to use PayPal. In the same way you have control over all your subscriptions in one place, and can cancel without the interference of the counterparty - a great benefit indeed. And paypal can work with anything, any entity that has a PayPal account. PP is, of course, not without its own horror stories, however a lot of that is around p2p selling-gone-…

This doesn’t actually help, because ending payment for a subscription doesn’t absolve you of legal responsibility, and you might at some point end up getting sent to collections over something stupid. Importantly, Apple can force companies as part of their terms of service to recognize an App Store subscription cancellation as an actual cancellation of obligation to pay.

I suppose that's possible, but it would at least put the onus on them to begin legal proceedings. I would also argue that they'd be putting their PP relationship at risk by taking such an anti-consumer attitude. Certainly this is something I want to look out for, but so far (knock on wood) it hasn't bitten me.

Re: App store bill sails out of Senate Judiciary Committee

#274

Post by Bellamy »

zepto wrote: post #154
keleftheriou wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> afraid that non-App Store apps will be able to install viruses or brick their devices - which isn't the case. It absolutely is the case.

You can already install malware to your device if you want to and sometimes even if you don't. Allowing other sources for installation is already build into phones.

Re: App store bill sails out of Senate Judiciary Committee

#275

Post by dmz73 »

olliej wrote: post #137
dmz73 wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Apple's centralization is not forcefully removed, you can choose to keep using only Apple approved software from Apple store and you will not see any difference. This change would just allows you to install software from another source if you wish. If Apple implements the change similar to how Android works, you will have to allow installation from non-Apple store sources, you can do it per app, you can do it once an…

we already know it causes malware. Android has demonstrated this very clearly. You also can't retroactively undo a security hole: once you've installed malicious software the other software on the system by definition can't be trusted.

Android has demonstrated that you can have multiple app stores and that majority of users will happily use the default app store which for vast majority of Android phones is Google Play store.

Malware has made it into Google Play store which is Google's fault.

Same has happened to Apple (https://9to5mac.com/2021/05/07/emails-reveal-128-million-ios...; https://us.norton.com/internetsecurity-emerging-threats-ios-...) so you cannot be guaranteed to be safe just because you are behind a walled garden, you still need to think for yourself.

Allowing app side-loading or different app store is not a security hole.

Using non-approved apps or non-trusted app stores might allow for existing security hole to be exploited more easily but it might also allow for better protection against such security hole by providing better curated app stores for less tech-savvy users.

Re: App store bill sails out of Senate Judiciary Committee

#276

Post by shuckles »

dangus wrote: post #192
threeseed wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Except that you can only do so after you know it is offending. By then the app could've siphoned all of your data.

This is the status quo on desktop OSes, and it's largely a solved problem. A centralized monopolistic app store isn't solving the same "problem."

Is that true? I still have to remove AltAdBrowser fairly often from my mother’s relatively new Dell laptop when I visit.

Re: App store bill sails out of Senate Judiciary Committee

#277

Post by Bellamy »

Spivak wrote: post #227
dskloet wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Strongly disagree. 30% cut is a robbery that only a monopoly can get away with.

Re: App store bill sails out of Senate Judiciary Committee

#278

Post by zepto »

flutas wrote: post #177
zepto wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> afraid that non-App Store apps will be able to install viruses or brick their devices - which isn't the case. It absolutely is the case.

> It absolutely is the case. If that can happen, then that is a security flaw of the device and should be fixed, no? I mean, reading a text could install a virus on iPhones last year, yet I didn't see people screaming that all texts should have to go through Apple to make sure they aren't a virus.

> If that can happen, then that is a security flaw of the device and should be fixed, no?

Yes. It should be fixed.

Guess what? Nobody has ever in human history figured out how to make software that is free of security flaws. That’s why these things are only part of the solution.

> I mean, reading a text could install a virus on iPhones last year, yet I didn't see people screaming that all texts should have to go through Apple to make sure they aren't a virus

If you think application software is like a text message then you don’t know enough to comment on this issue.

Re: App store bill sails out of Senate Judiciary Committee

#279

Post by ThatPlayer »

dodobirdlord wrote: post #269
panzagl wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Collective bargaining involves two parties, one representing the 'collective'. App stores are more at-will: 'my way or the highway'.

The collective of Apple’s users makes its will known by continuing to purchase iPhones.

Then they can continue to use Apple's App Store and all the other stores will fail.

Re: App store bill sails out of Senate Judiciary Committee

#280

Post by zepto »

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...

You can always buy a developer account.
Post reply on HN