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

311–320 of 437 posts

Re: App store bill sails out of Senate Judiciary Committee

#311

Post by idle_zealot »

donmcronald wrote: post #248
Zak wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Android offers sideloading and third-party app stores (with minor limitations), yet the vast majority of users do not sideload Android apps. I remember reading it's about 1 in 200 who does, which I found surprisingly small. Commercial apps that aren't in Google's store usually want to do something against Google's rules - sometimes for good reasons, sometimes not. I don't think you'll find many apps jumping ship enti…

I bet part of the reason for that is because of how it's presented. Google puts up several warnings that you have to click through and they're all along the lines of "this will ruin you phone!" IMO having sideloading isn't anything more than a well thought out, long term plan to deflect accusations of anti-competitive behavior. In reality they do everything they can to discourage users from sideloading. The biggest i…

> If they're sandboxed the same as other apps and have fine grained permission controls I'd do a lot more sideloading.

They are subject to the same permission request/granting system as apps installed through a store. That system is OS-level and applies to all non-system apps.

Re: App store bill sails out of Senate Judiciary Committee

#312

Post by Apocryphon »

dane-pgp wrote: post #264
chacham15 wrote: post #225

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Presumably "similar Apps or functions" would mean that third-party Apps could once again[0] deactivate the cellular radio, to prevent tracking by the mobile network at certain times (or locations/speeds). [0] https://stackoverflow.com/questions/25674655/how-to-turn-on-...

Not so. Those functions are OS-exclusive. It's doubtful that legislators intend the Settings app to be one of those similar apps that third parties can duplicate, and Apple would easily win any case that argued otherwise.

Re: App store bill sails out of Senate Judiciary Committee

#313

Post by colinmhayes »

tmpuser123 wrote: post #259

To those who say that if I don't sideload then this change won't affect me, I don't think this is true. Just because there aren't many alternative app stores on Android doesn't mean it won't happen on iOS. Developers will do this if there is a financial incentive. This is a forced fragmentation of the App store and will do absolutely nothing to improve the experience of a normal, non-HN-reading end user. This will in…

> will do absolutely nothing to improve the experience of a normal user

Developers will lower prices and/or spend more on development when costs decrease.

Re: App store bill sails out of Senate Judiciary Committee

#314

Post by idle_zealot »

roughly wrote: post #286
idle_zealot wrote: post #166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> a bare minimum, they’ll have the Google store and the Facebook store Why Google and FB in particular? Because of the ad tracking thing? Note that if Apple allows sideloading, then rather than installing G/FB’s official apps you’d be able to install 3rd-party clients to their services that mitigate tracking/block ads. Currently you can’t easily do this because of App Store policy disallowing apps that violate the To…

Because Facebook and Google have the size, market power, and incentive to do it. They’re both mad at Apple over Apple’s privacy moves, they’ve got the engineering talent and scale to make it viable, and there’s not an apple device out there without at least one of Facebook, WhatsApp, and Instagram or Gmail, YouTube, and Google Maps. Hell, I’m as ornery as they come over this crap, but even I won’t use Apple Maps. And…

> This isn’t the era of the open internet, and that doesn’t change with an open App Store either

I wasn’t throwing out a hypothetical when offering 3rd party clients as a solution to installing Google or FB’s stores. This is already what’s happened on Android. Rather than download official apps from Google Play one can install a community app store (F-Droid) and grab enhanced 3rd party clients there.

API control is rarely an issue aside from the fact that these unofficial clients tend to use said APIs in ways that violate the provider’s terms of service. As such the client apps violate the Google Play Store’s rules and must be sideloaded. This rule is also why 3rd party clients must be sideloaded on iOS.

Re: App store bill sails out of Senate Judiciary Committee

#315

Post by zepto »

Apocryphon wrote: post #287
zepto wrote: post #283

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you suggesting that iOS provides perfect security? If you think that, I am not going to bother to do the googling for you.

It provides far better security than Apple critics believe. Apple haters do not trust the company’s quality of engineering.

So you avoided the question.

Are you suggesting that iOS provides perfect security?

Re: App store bill sails out of Senate Judiciary Committee

#316

Post by hparadiz »

Apocryphon wrote: post #165

I find the FUD against third party app stores on iOS to be simultaneously crediting Apple with providing immense amounts of security in its App Store, and believing that it would be incredibly helpless without sole control through its App Store. That's very contradictory, both in ignoring the many, many vulnerabilities and scams that have proliferated on the App Store through the years (not to mention other negative…

> iOS is more secure than Android

[Citation Needed]

Re: App store bill sails out of Senate Judiciary Committee

#317

Post by Apocryphon »

zepto wrote: post #315
Apocryphon wrote: post #287

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It provides far better security than Apple critics believe. Apple haters do not trust the company’s quality of engineering.

So you avoided the question. Are you suggesting that iOS provides perfect security?

Far closer to perfect security than anti-Apple skeptics such as yourself would claim.

Re: App store bill sails out of Senate Judiciary Committee

#318

Post by lostmsu »

runako wrote: post #301
lostmsu wrote: post #233

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> DoorDash are able to take that much of a cut from sellers and restaurants You are building a perfect argument against Apple here. As DoorDash rates grew I stopped using them less and less and started driving to the restaurants myself. And DoorDash rates are still far cry from 30%.

Reminder of the risks of generalizing from one's personal experience, quite especially if one has an HN account . DoorDash revenues & delivery volume show that more people are placing orders, and for more money. And this is for basic delivery, where many buyers will be a short drive away and could in theory have placed a 1985-style pickup order. There's no captive element like an App Store. https://s22.q4cdn.com/2802…

From your link: "30%+ M12 Customer Retention"

If I read this correctly, at least 60% of users stop using DD after 1 year.

Re: App store bill sails out of Senate Judiciary Committee

#319

Post by hparadiz »

idle_zealot wrote: post #311
donmcronald wrote: post #248

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I bet part of the reason for that is because of how it's presented. Google puts up several warnings that you have to click through and they're all along the lines of "this will ruin you phone!" IMO having sideloading isn't anything more than a well thought out, long term plan to deflect accusations of anti-competitive behavior. In reality they do everything they can to discourage users from sideloading. The biggest i…

> If they're sandboxed the same as other apps and have fine grained permission controls I'd do a lot more sideloading. They are subject to the same permission request/granting system as apps installed through a store. That system is OS-level and applies to all non-system apps.

This is actually exactly the same as how MacOS does it except for, ironically, terminal based tools (like homebrew).

Re: App store bill sails out of Senate Judiciary Committee

#320

Post by jws »

echelon wrote: post #108
roughly wrote: post #97

If anyone actually thinks we’re going to be in an objectively better spot in 2 years because of this bill, I encourage you to take a real good look around at the actual world we actually live in. Things I guarantee you will see because of this: 1. You will have six different app stores on your phone. The Apple one, the Facebook one, the Google one, the Epic one, and at least two more, probably one from Disney and one…

> You will have six different app stores on your phone. The Apple one, the Facebook one, the Google one, the Epic one, [...] Let me turn this on its head. If you don't want Facebook, you're free not to download it. > You live in a world in which large predators want to devour you and small predators want to gnaw on you Right now Apple is that large predator. They take 30% (wtf!), have to examine all deploys (nevermin…

I agree with a lot of this, but some of the boogey men in the these arguments when stated simply over inflate themselves.

…They take 30% (wtf!)…

On 93% of the applications, Apple takes 0%. They vet your app for the users and handle distribution for $0.

They provide the development environment for free (Your developer identity costs you $100/year and is required to release software in the store, but the tools are free and you don't need an identity to use them for yourself.)

Of the remaining 7% of the applications, until you are pulling in $1,000,000/year from the Apple App Store the Apple takes 15% and pays the credit card processing costs out of that. (At the worst end for you, if you sell a $0.99 app or in-app-purchase, your credit card company is going to charge you maybe 12.4%, so you are right back in the same territory. My local deli won't even take a card for less than a $5 purchase.)

Now we come to the whales. Statistically about 0% of the apps, but they bring in the money. These guys are paying 30% and that is some serious coin. They are absolutely subsidizing the development tools and store mechanics. It must gaul them that they are the huge customer and are getting a negative discount.

I wonder how big a whale you have to be to go to a different store and take >70% of your users with you?

…have to examine all deploys (nevermind your emergency)…

People's milage varies here, and no one writes a blog post describing things working normally, but the store review process is so fast these days that I push my release candidate up, refill my "tea", ask the cat how her day is going, and TestFlight download my approved app to one of my untethered test devices to test. It's that fast. In the bad old days that process could have taken days for me, but now it's smooth. I've been releasing this app since there was an App Store and I've never had a release rejected, so maybe I get special treatment. And to be balanced, I know people in industries which have to educate the reviewer on the legality and compliance of their app on every release, so that part of the review process still could use some help. That isn't doing Apple or the app developer any good.

But… even though I agree with many of your points, I want all my apps to come through Apple, and I don't want to have to provide friends-and-family tech support to all my knuckleheads who will cargo cult install some unmonitored store and end up on the bad end of a bad person's scam.

Post reply on HN