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

331–340 of 350 posts

Re: Rethinking the App Store

#331

Post by jpttsn »

izacus wrote: post #77
jpttsn wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

iOS is not sold as a general purpose computing OS. It’s been clear from day one. People use products way beyond their original purpose, and then feel entitled to the manufacturer’s support. Like eating candy for every meal, and then complaining that it’s not good nutrition.

That is patently false if you even take a glance at iPad webpage. Some itself is very loudly screaming about how iPad is a computer to replace your laptop.

But that kind of marketing is like saying you should drink water to replace your beer: it doesn't claim the water is beer; it's claiming you probably will be happier with water.

See also the "What's a computer" ad for the iPad Pro.

Re: Rethinking the App Store

#332

Post by jpttsn »

adoxyz wrote: post #135
jpttsn wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

iOS is not sold as a general purpose computing OS. It’s been clear from day one. People use products way beyond their original purpose, and then feel entitled to the manufacturer’s support. Like eating candy for every meal, and then complaining that it’s not good nutrition.

how do you define a general purpose computing OS? I would be hard pressed to see how iOS or iPadOS are not general computing OS's.

General purpose OS to me means a platform whose primary use involves that I bring my own software.

This is vague; I'm no really inclined to work from a strict definition in this case. It seems Platonic and unproductive.

As evidence for the vague distinction, see early quote (in TFA) from Jobs:

>“We define everything that is on the phone,” he said. “You don’t want your phone to be like a PC. The last thing you want is to have loaded three apps on your phone and then you go to make a call and it doesn’t work anymore. These are more like iPods than they are like computers”…

“These are devices that need to work, and you can’t do that if you load any software on them,” he said. “That doesn’t mean there’s not going to be software to buy that you can load on them coming from us. It doesn’t mean we have to write it all, but it means it has to be more of a controlled environment.”

Of course many say consumers are entitled to redefine the product and hold their new definition over the manufacturer's head, with courts/other politics as a backup cudgel should consumers' market power not suffice. That's what I argue is distasteful on part of consumers.

Re: Rethinking the App Store

#333

Post by jpttsn »

wayneftw wrote: post #107
jpttsn wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

iOS is not sold as a general purpose computing OS. It’s been clear from day one. People use products way beyond their original purpose, and then feel entitled to the manufacturer’s support. Like eating candy for every meal, and then complaining that it’s not good nutrition.

Some shady car manufacturers tried to stop people from being able to buy after market parts for their cars and our legal system put a stop to that. So, given that phones are easily as important as cars, I have confidence that we'll get justice for Apple's anti-consumer behavior too.

Maybe "justice" will be served: the will of the people goes far sometimes. I'd point out that the public can get away with things that don't match my personal sense of ethics, but your sense of ethics is clearly different and probably incompatible with mine.

Incidentally I'm not so confident in this case; I'd take even odds on Apple winning this one.

Re: Rethinking the App Store

#334

Post by AnthonyMouse »

LexGray wrote: post #308
AnthonyMouse wrote: post #201

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You would think this would be an easy point to prove as Android has had alternative app stores for years, but there seem to be no winners there. I'm not sure how having to download app specific app stores (i.e. Epic's app store) is better for anyone except for Epic. Let's start with one point. Third party stores don't have to be popular in order for them to be beneficial, because their existence causes the dominant…

> then passing most of that savings on to the customer is obviously going to save the customer money. I see no evidence of Epic passing savings to the consumer in this scenario. Unless by customer you mean stock holder in which case the fight is about which stock holders get paid. Edit: unless you are referring to a temporary PR sale where they were still paying the 30% cut in many cases.

When they introduced their iOS "store" which used a non-Apple payment service they lowered prices because they weren't paying 30% to anybody. Which is totally logical and profit-seeking in both the short and long term because when you're making 30% higher margins, sacrificing some of them in exchange for higher volumes will generally maximize profits.

Re: Rethinking the App Store

#335

Post by supermatt »

comex wrote: post #326
supermatt wrote: post #325

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Good luck expecting a user to do that! As I already said, you cant distribute an ad-hoc app, so this is exactly what they would have to do - hence my smiley face! You CANNOT bypass gatekeeper on silicon - that is the whole point - otherwise there is no difference to the current behaviour.

> You CANNOT bypass gatekeeper on silicon - that is the whole point, otherwise there would be no diffference! Yes, you can. The only difference between Intel and Apple silicon in this regard is that binaries that literally have no code signature (as opposed to a self-signed one) will not run. It's a technical cleanup measure that removes a special case (executable with no associated signature blob), not a lockdown me…

So its just the format of the executable that has changed? This certainly isn't what was discussed the other day - and seemingly confirmed by a user with a transition kit... :/

I see why you mentioned ELF, now.

Ill descend from my soapbox on that matter, then. Thank you for correcting me. :D

Re: Rethinking the App Store

#336

Post by AnthonyMouse »

quesera wrote: post #297
AnthonyMouse wrote: post #259

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

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

The issue isn't they should have to do it for you, it's that they've taken purposeful action to prevent anyone else from doing it.

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

But this doesn't require the store to be glued to the device. You could get the same experience by using only Apple's store, or some other store you trust, even if others were available.

Linux package managers are a fine example of this. The large majority of Linux software is installed through them, and doing what the packagers require to get included is enough of a benefit that developers do it, but there is nothing at all preventing there from being multiple independent packaging systems or preventing people from installing software from the internet. They just don't, in general, because they prefer to get it from the package manager.

> Mobile platform mobility is very high. People do it all the time!

People move house all the time too, that doesn't mean the cost is low.

You're essentially arguing that it's possible for it to be low. If you're about to buy a new phone anyway and you don't have many apps and none of your apps only run on iOS, then all you have is the retraining cost of learning a different operating system and the differences between the hardware of different platforms and so on.

But this is just arguing that if you're about to move house anyway then the cost of switching away from Comcast isn't as high. For one thing it's still high, because the differences between different houses/platforms is still quite significant and decisions are made based on a multitude of considerations in addition to app stores. But for another, what happens to the people in the opposite circumstances? They're not halfway through their contract and have many expensive iOS-specific apps with a network effect, and then they want to buy your app. No way they can switch just for that.

> 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.

They don't have to mitigate it but then it's a significant component of switching costs. Eat your cake or have it.

Re: Rethinking the App Store

#337

Post by pwinnski »

LexGray wrote: post #315
pwinnski wrote: post #240

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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,…

So Apple still needs to be responsible for content of third party stores? The stores should require Apple code signing to allow remote shut down and be complaints about items in non Apple stores reviewed by Apple for unscrupulous behavior? Sound like a waste of battery where like Mac and Windows a constant malware checker would be required at the OS level.

If you spend your time looking for ways to insist that the status quo is easiest, then yes, you'll find ways to insist that the status quo is easiest.

Like I said, I'm only now coming around on this, but I think a $2T company with total control of both hardware and software can probably work out a way to support additional stores without requiring a full-time battery-draining malware checker. In fact, I suspect most of us could figure out how to avoid that if we tried, rather than trying the opposite.

Sandboxing and limited APIs already exist, Apple doesn't need to review apps that don't appear in their App Store. As I've said, I suspect a very small percentage of people would be willing to install additional stores, and they can hardly complain if it turns out apps purchased there overshare PII.

Re: Rethinking the App Store

#338

Post by perseusprime11 »

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…

I am an Apple customer because I believe in their oversight and governance on the App store. I really don't want third party stores and 30% fee seems fair given the access to huge distribution.

Re: Rethinking the App Store

#339

Post by quesera »

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #336
quesera wrote: post #297

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> I do not agree that Apple has an obligation to develop this functionality for me. The issue isn't they should have to do it for you, it's that they've taken purposeful action to prevent anyone else from doing it. > I think iOS is a better consumer product because it has never allowed ad hoc app installs. But this doesn't require the store to be glued to the device. You could get the same experience by using only Ap…

> The issue isn't they should have to do it for you, it's that they've taken purposeful action to prevent anyone else from doing it.

The crux of our disagreement may lie here.

Apple did not take active steps to prevent other app stores from running on iOS.

They spent many years of active effort to prevent any app from escaping the runtime sandbox. As a side effect, I cannot load arbitrary phone applications, keyboard handlers, or app stores.

Demanding that Apple undo (or make exceptions in) this design, which provides runtime security across the OS, would be coerced development. It weakens the product, is contrary to corporate goals, and is not valuable to most customers.

It is reasonable to argue that sideloading is less problematic than allowing alternate app stores. The sideloaded app would still run in the sandbox. But it would break an important layer of defense-in-depth, and why would Apple willingly take on that extra risk? I can understand why some customers would consider it convenient if they did, but I cannot support forcing them to do so.

Re: switching costs: In what consumer relationship does the buyer not assume some risk in their decision? If I buy a car, but change my mind in a few months and prefer a different model, who eases that transition for me? Any complex product will come with compromises -- suitability for purpose is not guaranteed. The compromise on iOS is that you do not install arbitrary apps. Maybe this surprises some people, but they can return the device in-window, or they can choose differently next time. I do not see any level of extraordinary consumer harm in this practice.

Re: Rethinking the App Store

#340

Post by sroussey »

saagarjha wrote: post #205
sroussey wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, you must get Apple to approve/notarize now, regardless of Mac App Store.

Notarization is currently not a requirement.

I can’t run anything on my Mac that was downloaded from the internet and not signed and notarized.
Post reply on HN