App store bill sails out of Senate Judiciary Committee • Hacker News Board

Re: App store bill sails out of Senate Judiciary Committee

#381

Post by simondotau » Fri, Feb 04, 2022, 2:11 PM UTC

post_break wrote: post #111

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…

Where are the 6 app store apps for android. Where are the app stores for Mac and PC? I can buy games for my PC from Steam, direct, green man gaming, etc etc. I can install apps that do things Apple thinks I shouldn't. The idea that having a choice of where I buy an app is a bad thing boggles my mind just because one goes in my pocket and the other sits on a desk. This fear mongering has to stop. Don't want to sideloa…

The reason why there aren’t 6 stores on Android is that Google hasn’t been forced by law to roll out the red carpet for alternative stores.

Re: App store bill sails out of Senate Judiciary Committee

#382

Post by syspec » Fri, Feb 04, 2022, 2:36 PM UTC

Apocryphon wrote: post #310

bobthepanda wrote: post #290

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not looking forward to when Verizon, AT&T, and T-mobile all decide to make app stores of their own and put them front and center. Their first attempts pre-iPhone were very shoddy.

Apple disrupted the whole game and put carriers on the defensive. It is highly unlikely that the carriers could try to create their own app stores to funnel iOS users towards them. Unlike with Android, neither they nor the OEMs have the ability to customize the operating system. Nor would users care to install a bunch of bloatware apps on some shoddy telecom's third party app store.

The same carriers that hijack DNS, to show you adds when you make a typo on a URL? Or the same carriers that managed to show you an add when you're on WiFi that you pay for, on your own computer?

Re: App store bill sails out of Senate Judiciary Committee

#383

Post by nerdjon » Fri, Feb 04, 2022, 2:44 PM UTC

dskloet wrote: post #365

nerdjon wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I just decided to do some quick number crunching to see how much this actually would impact me. Not including Apple One, I spend $432 a year on subscriptions on the App Store. All of those are not available via any other means. So if I saved 30% I would be paying $302 a year... Yeah I would happily continue paying $432 to be able to easily drop something if they start a behavior I don't like and feel like I am in con…

Thanks for your answer. I agree making it difficult to unsubscribe is bad, but I honestly cannot imagine myself paying extra recurringly for saving myself 10 minutes once at the end. So it's interesting to see people making different trade-offs.

TBH for me it is the principle than the time savings.

If I have to call and cancel, that is basically a guarantee I will never use you again and will warn everyone to not use you.

If I have to jump through a bunch of screens, I will be mildly upset but will probably forget about it.

I just don't want to support that behavior, so these companies basically being forced to do so on "my" (really apple's but I am making a choice to use them) terms is worth some financial cost to me.

If I had thousands of subscriptions, maybe I would be saying something different. But the yearly additional cost in this theoretical situation is minimal and to me it sends a signal. If I actually was given that choice then the company can see those metrics and hopefully see why.

Re: App store bill sails out of Senate Judiciary Committee

#384

Post by scarface74 » Fri, Feb 04, 2022, 4:03 PM UTC

tragictrash wrote: post #374

scarface74 wrote: post #213

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s not dominant because of any inherent trait of Android besides it’s price.

I don't think you understand how this works. It's dominant. Just because you think iphone is better doesn't mean it's not dominant. Classic Tesla fanboy logic

I’m saying just the opposite. If the argument is that people prefer Android over iPhones for reasons like “openness” [sic] that’s clearly not the case. Where users can afford iPhones either because they have the income or where carriers have easy payment plans, they buy IPhones - like in the US or the more affluent even in China.

Re: App store bill sails out of Senate Judiciary Committee

#385

Post by warning26 » Fri, Feb 04, 2022, 4:15 PM UTC

tragictrash wrote: post #377

warning26 wrote: post #209

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I mean, it exists -- but does anyone actually use it?

Amazon is cranking out the fire tablets and sticks. Tons of devices use it.

Sure, Amazon devices use it. On those devices, it's not a third-party app store, it's a first-party one.

The question here is specifically about if anyone can be convinced to use third-party app stores.

Re: App store bill sails out of Senate Judiciary Committee

#386

Post by flutas » Fri, Feb 04, 2022, 4:20 PM UTC

zepto wrote: post #278

flutas wrote: post #177

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 thro…

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

If you think that was an example of what I think software is like, then you probably shouldn't comment on it either. I'm just commenting on the fact that, like you said, there's always going to be security issues and using them as the scapegoat for "why" this can't happen is a bad argument.

What's the difference between running an app ad-hoc right now (via XCode) vs allowing a user to download and install any app they want. The answer is, there isn't any except for artificial limitations put in place by apple.

Anything an app that is installed could do would be the same between the store, ad-hoc builds, or installed from a download. The security is in the platform, not the App Store. How many times have we seen something slip through Apple's review process? Fortnite got a full CC flow UI through, many apps back in the day would slip WiFi tethering into their app and get through. All it would take is a simple API call with a boolean to enable or disable the "security issue."

You could always do checks to see what API calls they are using and use that as a metric of "security" but that can also be done device-side. "Hey, this app is using a sketchy API that shouldn't be public, we're going to block it."

Re: App store bill sails out of Senate Judiciary Committee

#387

Post by scarface74 » Fri, Feb 04, 2022, 4:22 PM UTC

FpUser wrote: post #339

scarface74 wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Don’t you think that dominance worldwide might be attributed to the fact that you can get an Android phone for $50?

The fact that one does not have to sell own kidney to own smartphone definitely helps I think. Does it somehow make non Apple smartphones less of a product?

Not at all. But people aren’t buying Androids because they care about it being “open”.

Re: App store bill sails out of Senate Judiciary Committee

#388

Post by hedora » Fri, Feb 04, 2022, 4:33 PM UTC

anonymouse008 wrote: post #130

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…

> If you are arguing that some people will be tricked into installing malware from other sources then you are right that this change would allow that but it will still require user to go through few steps which should raise red flags for them. Some people just can't resist pushing that button without thinking and regardless of the consequences and in that case app store safety net is just temporary anyway, they are s…

Yeah; these glitterbomb avengers are contributing to a national airbnb shortage.

Seriously though, I have a hand typed letter from the mid 80's running a similar scam.

If anything, technology has made this sort of thing riskier for the scammers.

Consider how you'd reproduce the vigilante's setup using 1980's technology. It probably wouldn't be feasible.

Re: App store bill sails out of Senate Judiciary Committee

#389

Post by tomjen3 » Fri, Feb 04, 2022, 4:39 PM UTC

Andrew_nenakhov wrote: post #372

tomjen3 wrote: post #369

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, I do not want to have to disable them per app or even being asked if want to enable them.

For this, there is a system-wide 'do not disturb' mode. It is actually shocking to me that some people have this extremely narrow view of this problem. There are huge classes of applications that absolutely require immediate notification of the user, but here people just handwaive this as a non-issue because "I don't like to be disturbed". How about a doctor called for an operation? Your car being robbed? Incoming ba…

A voip call should be done normally, which means that unless you are one of my starred contacts I don't get a notification in DND mode. I have starred maybe 5.

You can make up all sorts of notifications for emergencies but I could counter with what happens if I am in the shower when I get the notification? I don't want a tornado warning the last possible second, I want to know it ahead of time so that I can get to a safe place. If my car is broken into there is nothing I can do, if my grandmother has a fall it is at least 30 minutes before I can get to her, I don't need notifications for bank payments (it gets added to a list that I renew when necessary).

I wouldn't want a notification for an active shooter at all -- if I was hiding from the shooter, it could give my location away.

Re: App store bill sails out of Senate Judiciary Committee

#390

Post by dane-pgp » Fri, Feb 04, 2022, 4:52 PM UTC

Apocryphon wrote: post #345

guerrilla wrote: post #326

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Apple would easily win any case that argued otherwise. Why?

Perhaps I overstepped my IANAL boundaries there. But I think it shouldn’t be too difficult for Apple’s lawyers to argue that functionality built into the OS to protect location data or control the cellular radio are distinct from say, Apple’s first party Podcasts or Music apps.

A judge should be unimpressed if Apple simultaneously argued that they need to protect users from apps which track your location data, and that they need to deny those users the ability to install apps which stop mobile networks from tracking your every move.