Rethinking the App Store • Hacker News Board

Re: Rethinking the App Store

#291

Post by jonny_eh » Wed, Aug 26, 2020, 9:49 PM UTC

Spivak wrote: post #215

georgeecollins wrote: post #185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That is exactly what Epic was doing. They were allowing people to make purchases at a 20% discount through a web app of digital content that could appear in iPhone App. And Apple took their app down. It's not the pricing that Apple opposed, its that you could buy it through another method. How can you have the pricing changes you propose if Apple forbids selling interactive content for their platform through any othe…

This is where the situation gets complicated. Apple's position is that you can't use their devices to sell digital goods not via them. It would be as if a bottle of shampoo at Target had on the label "Buy it online instead of Target for 30% off." If you can get your customers to buy your stuff on your own with your own marketing not using Apple's devices then you win and get to keep the 30% but if you use your app to…

Except when you're in Fortnite, you're not in the Apple Store, you're in the Fortnite Store.

Re: Rethinking the App Store

#292

Post by Tijdreiziger » Wed, Aug 26, 2020, 9:52 PM UTC

anoncake wrote: post #288

Tijdreiziger wrote: post #270

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The desktop is incredibly outdated, and it's painfully visible. Any desktop application you install isn't sandboxed at all and has full access to all your files and peripherals (including camera and microphone). The only way to describe this is 'insane'.

That is only a problem when you run untrusted software. Doing that is insane.

No, you shouldn't need to trust software in the first place. Why should my email client be allowed to access my camera, whether I trust it or not?

Re: Rethinking the App Store

#293

Post by cactus2093 » Wed, Aug 26, 2020, 9:58 PM UTC

nightski wrote: post #276

Why do we need 3rd party stores? Why not just have a standard for an app endpoint url that iOS knows how to interact with. So I could publish an app on a private domain and then iOS would know how to download the app and check for updates from that end point? While there is value in a centralized store to search for apps (and that can certainly stick around), I don't understand why apps are forced to be hosted centra…

This seems like just an implementation detail of the idea of 3rd party stores, I don’t really see how it’s a big distinction. And Apple’s opposition to this idea would clearly be the same as the reasons it has given not to allow third party stores.

Re: Rethinking the App Store

#294

Post by bogwog » Wed, Aug 26, 2020, 10:04 PM UTC

yyyk wrote: post #230

bogwog wrote: post #216

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

> 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.

I don't think so. That's mostly FUD in my opinion, since apps installed from Google Play can do the exact same amount of evil stuff as anything downloaded from an external site. Since Android/iOS already have sandboxing and per-app permissions, the only benefit to having a single distributor is the potential of having that application scanned for malware before you downloaded it. The same thing can be accomplished without a separate antivirus app, like you'd see on Windows. In fact, I think Windows Defender is a good model for how Google and Apple could provide the same (purported) security guarantees while still allowing third-party stores. Play Protect (I think) does that already, but it also mainly functions as a wall of scary warnings/deterrent to competition.

> 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.

True that Steam is kind of questionable when it comes to security, but that's more the fault of the desktop operating systems which don't have sandboxing built-in. I too would like to see increased usage for things like SELinux/AppArmor, but that seems a bit hopeless. Valve can't just ship a kernel module alongside Steam, and I doubt Canonical is going to start shipping SELinux with Ubuntu Desktop (the support forums would explode).

I think Microsoft added sandboxing features to UWP apps, but that's its own can of worms. If you make a UWP app, you need to distribute it through the Microsoft app store, and you need to deal with a lot of the same BS that Apple and Google are being sued for.

Re: Rethinking the App Store

#295

Post by dkersten » Wed, Aug 26, 2020, 10:08 PM UTC

yungstevejobs wrote: post #251

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…

>By opening the platform to other app stores, developers will benefit due to choice and competition on fees and descoverability, end users will benefit from encouraged innovation, Apple will be forced to compete on convenience or features instead of letting it stagnate while they collect buckets of cash... it would be good for consumers and the ecosystem. I think the only group that will benefit from 3rd party app st…

> You said you have trouble discovering apps now with a unified store, so I’m not sure how discovering apps on multiple different app stores will be any easier.

Because multiple competing stores pushes them to compete on something. Apple is super rich, it would be really hard to compete with price alone, so a competing store has incentive to compete on features or other innovations, including novel ways to make discoverability on their stores easier. Maybe it wouldn't happen, but right now, Apple have zero incentive to do anything to improve their App Store.

Re: Rethinking the App Store

#296

Post by dkersten » Wed, Aug 26, 2020, 10:11 PM UTC

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…

Its about two things for me:

1. Users to have the ability to choose, on the expensive devices that they own.

2. Competition, which drives the companies to try to improve their offering (for users and developers) in order to stay ahead. Competition is healthy and prevents stagnation.

Re: Rethinking the App Store

#297

Post by quesera » Wed, Aug 26, 2020, 10:25 PM UTC

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #259

quesera wrote: post #250

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is nothing like Comcast. There are very rarely two cable providers in a given area. Moving house is not equivalent to buying a different consumer gadget. ... Union members get to elect union leadership. Phone customers get to elect phone manufacturers. Equivalency restored.

> This is nothing like Comcast. There are very rarely two cable providers in a given area. That's why the analogy fits -- if you have an iPhone you're in Apple's service area. You can't get your apps from Google Play unless you move to their platform. But having both a cable provider and a telco in the same area is actually very common. And even if there is a strong competitor (singular), e.g. FiOS, it's still hugely…

I like the idea of allowing alternate App Stores on iOS (or even setting a flag to allow running unsigned binaries).

I do not agree that Apple has an obligation to develop this functionality for me.

I can think of plenty of reasons they would not want to do so (and almost zero of them have anything to do with protecting their 30% cut of app sales).

I think iOS is a better consumer product because it has never allowed ad hoc app installs.

If I felt differently, I could switch. Mobile platform mobility is very high. People do it all the time! Most people have fewer than a dozen apps on their device, which itself costs a couple dozen dollars per month with a mobile plan. Switching costs, if synced to your contract period, are really very low.

Apps which are platform-exclusive (Apple Messages) are a different kettle of wax, and I don't think germane here. Complicated product/ecosystems inevitably fan out to imperfect sets of compromises. Sure, this contributes to intangible switching costs, but that's hardly Apple's responsibility to mitigate on my behalf.

I have varied opinions and experiences with Comcast, co-ops, and labor unions (negative, positive, disappointing), but I don't think any of the analogies make sense.

Re: Rethinking the App Store

#298

Post by romanoderoma » Wed, Aug 26, 2020, 10:30 PM UTC

auggierose wrote: post #275

romanoderoma wrote: post #248

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I don't think a law forcing all software to be accessible makes any kind of sense. Easy to say when you don't have disabilities Now imagine that the only content you can consume are government's websites to pay taxes...

Now imagine the only software you are allowed to write is the one that can meet all accessibility requirements.

That should be the norm if you care about it...

It's like saying that if you work in constructions you shouldn't care about accessibility unless you work on government's buildings

But people with disabilities go to cinemas, pubs, bars, restaurants, museums, stadiums, ballrooms etc. etc.

I honestly don't see your point

Re: Rethinking the App Store

#299

Post by jakelazaroff » Wed, Aug 26, 2020, 10:37 PM UTC

auggierose wrote: post #273

jakelazaroff wrote: post #247

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No one is asking for a law forcing all software to be accessible — just commercial and public (in the “government operated” sense) software. A bank’s size should not determine whether or not they have to support e.g. blind customers.

All software that's sold is commercial. So that means all software except software no-one pays for anyway.

Of which there is far more than commercial software, especially if you count e.g. websites.

Re: Rethinking the App Store

#300

Post by gwd » Wed, Aug 26, 2020, 10:42 PM UTC

nvrspyx wrote: post #203

gwd wrote: post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But that's part of what you're buying when you buy Apple. It would be one thing if Apple controlled 86% of the mobile phone market, and you as a consumer (or an app developer) didn't have much choice; but actually Apple only controls 14% of the smartphone market[1]. Both consumers and developers have lots of other options. [1] https://www.counterpointresearch.com/global-smartphone-share...

I think we're mostly contextualizing this to the US, where Apple has over 50% (~58% last I checked) of the market, which is where most competition of their own apps exist. Last I checked, iOS had ~24% of global market share. Regardless, 14% of 3.5 billion is still so ridiculously large that each phone OS should be considered their own market, not competitors within the same market. You wouldn't consider a microwave a…

> Last I checked, iOS had ~24% of global market share.

The link in my reference showed Apple at 14% of the global smartphone market for many years. Do you have a reference you think is more reliable?

Similarly, they have Apple in the US at between 40-49% the last 6 quarters:

https://www.counterpointresearch.com/us-market-smartphone-sh...

While that's not 14%, it's certainly not a monopoly. Consumers don't have to worry that if they switch to one of those 51% that they're on a platform that nobody else will use. Epic and Spotify and Kindle could make tons of money selling to the other 51% of phones in the US; and if Apple's terms were actually difficult for them to make money from, they could just not make iOS apps, and be perfectly healthy companies. The fact that they do sell on iOS shows that they are making plenty of money, just not as much as they'd like.