Epic, Spotify, and Tinder form advocacy group to push for app store changes • Hacker News Board

Re: Epic, Spotify, and Tinder form advocacy group to push for app store changes

#691

Post by sugarpile » Thu, Sep 24, 2020, 8:28 PM UTC

mthoms wrote: post #237

burlesona wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, it means Sony has to add Steam to PS5 or else it is narrow and arbitrary. To me the iPhone is a console, end of story. If you like the console experience, it’s a great device. If you don’t, there are a million android and even alternative OS based phones out there which are more like a PC. If you want your phone to be a PC, you should do what most people around the world do and buy one of those. Instead we have…

>To me the iPhone is a console, end of story. I'm so tired of hearing this ridiculous analogy. From a purely technical stand point it may be true, but for a large chunk of the population, the smartphone is their one and only connection to the digital world. It controls their connection to their bank accounts, governments, news/discourse, family, friends, dating life, education (formal and informal), medical informati…

It’s interesting you bring up disabilities since forcing apple to open up to other app stores will likely harm accessibility.

Accessibility on iOS is second to none. I be surprised if many disabled users were in the “open up iOS” camp.

Re: Epic, Spotify, and Tinder form advocacy group to push for app store changes

#692

Post by 0xDEEPFAC » Thu, Sep 24, 2020, 8:28 PM UTC

ojilles wrote: post #658

0xDEEPFAC wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yea and Google doesn't do the same sh*t as Apple? Looking at it this way, it is impossible to avoid abusive and increasingly vague and restrictive store policies.. You think there is a chance in hell Apple and Google are not going to continue the trend of restricting devs and taking bigger profit shares for the "privilege" of being in the store? Its only going to get worse. Good for them for standing up.

If you wish more competition to enter the market I'd argue for Apple to increase its prices (the higher margins the more competition). You're arguing they lower their prices, and thats just going to cement their position.

I am not arguing for them to continue their status quo, I am saying that without competition Apple/Google have no incentive to improve.

We would all be better off if Apple lowered prices and we got alternatives. That's a win/win even if most users don't use the alternatives.

Re: Epic, Spotify, and Tinder form advocacy group to push for app store changes

#693

Post by threeseed » Thu, Sep 24, 2020, 8:29 PM UTC

Apocryphon wrote: post #439

M4v3R wrote: post #395

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Where do you draw the line, though? PlayStation / Xbox are basically computers from a technical standpoint. They have hundreds of millions of users. They also store your personal data and credit card information should you provide it.

Apple seems to be portraying them as (potentially) life-saving technologies, for one thing https://www.macrumors.com/2018/12/06/apple-watch-real-storie...

That article is referring to the Apple Watch.

Re: Epic, Spotify, and Tinder form advocacy group to push for app store changes

#694

Post by yazaddaruvala » Thu, Sep 24, 2020, 8:29 PM UTC

simion314 wrote: post #509

yazaddaruvala wrote: post #465

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> this number of completly inexperienced user is not proven to be as large, if you look at Android or OSX you don't see 51% of users having malware on their machine > "protecting" an unknown small number of users by limiting the rest makes no sense, what makes more sense is MONEY For creating policies 51% is a bad measure. Its inherently biased to be regressive. Setting policies at 51% disproportionately hurts the bo…

I understand your point but we don't even know if the number of this users that need protecting is even 10%. This imaginary group of people must have this properties: - they are gullible , so bad people can trick them to ignore OS security warnings,create some extra account or security key to unlock the device (Apple can do it hard enough it must not be just 1 click) - at the same time this users are not that gullibl…

> they are gullible , so bad people can trick them to ignore OS security warnings > For me if I intersect all this sets of users I get void

I work at a pretty big company, where we are trusted to make a lot of important decisions but as I understand it even small companies have trainings to identify "phishing, clickbait, social engineering, etc". Every relatively big company also pre-approves devices that can connected and access the internal network. Installing software needs to be pre-approved. Even my browser Firefox or Chrome settings are pre-selected to ensure no compromising behavior can occur.

I know from past-experience, friends and colleagues that my current company is not unique. Because all humans (even the smartest sets) are gullible, it just depends how time constrained, sleep deprived or drunk they are.

Additionally, preventative protections on devices are used often even in personal contexts. When I help my mom set up her computer I pre-install everything and she doesn't have the admin password. This is the general recommendation for and by anyone helping someone under-educated about technology and abuse vectors. I've asked if she would rather me teach her and she just prefers using the computer without worry. Neither her, not this situation is unique.

That said, I have previously and do agree, Apple should make it easier to boot non-iOS iPhones. However, Apple should only provide that to the registered adult owner of the device, in person at an Apple store after delivering the caveats that the device will no longer be supported by Apple (regardless of resale) and any warranty is void.

Re: Epic, Spotify, and Tinder form advocacy group to push for app store changes

#695

Post by Razengan » Thu, Sep 24, 2020, 8:29 PM UTC

teddyh wrote: post #276

Razengan wrote: post #207

Earlier quoted context omitted.

..What? If X isn't a dealbreaker, then obviously customers are fine with X. If they weren't, it would be a dealbreaker.

There is a vast gulf of nuance between “fine” and “dealbreaker”.

If it’s a “””dealbreaker””” then you’re not okay with it.

If it’s not a dealbreaker then you’re okay with it.

How many different ways do you want to twist this?

If any of this mattered to anyone outside this echo chamber then Apple wouldn’t constantly come at #1 in customer surveys.

Re: Epic, Spotify, and Tinder form advocacy group to push for app store changes

#696

Post by treesprite82 » Thu, Sep 24, 2020, 8:31 PM UTC

pb7 wrote: post #349

ViViDboarder wrote: post #218

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because app stores are acting as platforms as well as used to restrict third parties and improve first party products. Does Fortnite even have a platform for developing cosmetics and selling them? If not, then this argument misses the mark. Consoles do provide salient examples though.

Why isn't Epic forced to make it a platform? They have a large captive audience with money and I want a cut of it. Opening it up to everyone will drive competition to the digital skin market, and as we all know from this thread, that's a good thing. Why does Epic get to monopolize their game's monetization?

Games and sports are usually their own artificial sub-context with intentional limitations and scarcity of items, rather than following the real-world market and having item cost being based on time to develop.

For example it's obvious that you could produce Pikachu Illustrator cards (https://i.imgur.com/Q9kUFq8.png) for far less than the $200,000 one sold for. Or create a new card with arbitrarily high stats.

I don't think it's reasonable to expect regular market rules to apply to a game, or vice versa.

Re: Epic, Spotify, and Tinder form advocacy group to push for app store changes

#697

Post by pb7 » Thu, Sep 24, 2020, 8:31 PM UTC

ThatPlayer wrote: post #664

pb7 wrote: post #463

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How exactly are consumers impacted by Apple's App Store? Other than having a consistently good experience where they are safe from malicious actors, privacy violations, manipulative subscriptions, malware, etc.

Not being able to use apps that Apple deem inappropriate: there's no PornHub app for anyone who wants that. Or more recently Microsoft's xCloud streaming app has been blocked even though it's not different than something like Netflix.

To show good faith, I will wholeheartedly agree that allowing Netflix and Spotify but not allowing xCloud, Stadia, Facebook Gaming, and now presumably Luna will be the straw that breaks the camel's back, moreso than Epic et al. There is no practical distinction between streaming video frames of The Witcher from Netflix and The Witcher 3 from xCloud.

Edit: Genuine question. Is it common for any mix-use store, physical or digital, to have hardcore pornography available?

Re: Epic, Spotify, and Tinder form advocacy group to push for app store changes

#698

Post by jakeva » Thu, Sep 24, 2020, 8:32 PM UTC

inigoalonso wrote: post #245

jakeva wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Any justification for forcing a hardware maker to allow arbitrary apps on their hardware, aside from your personal experience with being rejected?

I don't care about their hardware, I care about the hardware I own.

Then it seems the rational thing for you to do is to buy hardware that allows arbitrary software to be run

Re: Epic, Spotify, and Tinder form advocacy group to push for app store changes

#699

Post by freedomben » Thu, Sep 24, 2020, 8:32 PM UTC

gpm wrote: post #653

temp667 wrote: post #619

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The question from a principle standpoint is - can a company create an area where trust / safety / security are prioritized. T Developers no doubt disagree with this, they have created a web that is filled with crap. Let's be 100% clear about that. Spam calls via voip, spam into email, ddos floods of every sort imaginable, impossible to unsubscribe, cramming and slamming on subscription renewals and the list goes on.…

To keep the continuity of discussion, I assume that this comment was posted here because my top level comment was in part a reply to your (temp667's) comment here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24579860 I appreciate the attempt to connect this to the anti-trust suit, but I don't see this as a good justification for why your original critique is relevant for a few reasons: - Many of the practices in your origin…

> To the extent that people find the lock in useful, I expect they would install that software package.

Deep down I would guess that most people will still object on consequentialist grounds, because they know that not enough people will opt in unless forced, and so vendors will be able to ignore the walled garden. Apple sure as hell wouldn't be able to take 30% if there were other ways onto the iPhone, as big vendors would avoid it, thus requiring most users to give up the safe walled garden.

I still come out strongly against Apple on this one however as I am not a consequentialist.

Re: Epic, Spotify, and Tinder form advocacy group to push for app store changes

#700

Post by sixstringtheory » Thu, Sep 24, 2020, 8:33 PM UTC

ThatPlayer wrote: post #684

sixstringtheory wrote: post #678

Earlier quoted context omitted.

iOS is a product in a larger market. It is not the market itself. There are other products in the market in which iOS is a product, and there's nothing stopping more entrants (besides the enormous engineering/business effort, the likes of which have already been undertaken by current players like Apple/Google). Your argument would be equally invalid if you were to say Uber is a monopoly because Lyft can't get a slice…

Yes, iOS is a product in a larger market, but I'm talking about the Apple App Store itself, not iOS. The EU has already ruled "Android App Stores" is a market which Google is dominate in for example: https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/IP_18_... >The Commission decision concludes that Google is dominant in the markets for [...] app stores for the Android mobile operating system. It's not a stretch t…

> Since 2011, Google has imposed illegal restrictions on Android device manufacturers and mobile network operators to cement its dominant position in general internet search.

> In particular, Google:

> - has required manufacturers to pre-install the Google Search app and browser app (Chrome), as a condition for licensing Google's app store (the Play Store);

> - made payments to certain large manufacturers and mobile network operators on condition that they exclusively pre-installed the Google Search app on their devices; and

> - has prevented manufacturers wishing to pre-install Google apps from selling even a single smart mobile device running on alternative versions of Android that were not approved by Google (so-called "Android forks").

None of this describes anything Apple does. I don't think this ruling means what you think it means. It's talking about the _combination_ of search engine, licensing the OS to hardware vendors, _and_ the Google app store. None of those on their own led to this ruling.

It's all about how Google controls the licensing of Android, by controlling hardware vendor's licensing of other flavors of Android. (edit to add: and how this all feeds back into their search engine dominance. That is another point the linked document repeats on multiple occasions.)

> As a licensable operating system, Android is different from operating systems exclusively used by vertically integrated developers (like Apple iOS or Blackberry). Those are not part of the same market because they are not available for licence by third party device manufacturers.