Hacker News Reader

Comment by x0x0 | Hacker News Reader

And I hate that idea.

I get people in my life to buy ios devices precisely because, even when they try, they are unable to install malware. That is not a feature any other OS has. Particularly the over-easy access to sideloading on android.

Just last month my MIL managed to get her bank account password stolen because she used it on her PC and installed who knows what from one of those fake Microsoft support pop-over ads. The solution is to only access bank accounts on ios.

It's really a major selling point of the devices.

View on HN

I think you're both right.

IOS (and to a large extent, android) have genuinely found an OS paradigm that works for unsophisticated users and put more power and confidence in their hands. The appstore is a big part of that. The icon=app rule is another part, where removing an icon removes the app. Users have a much improved understanding of their phone's software on an iphone relative to a windows/osx PC.

That said, it also limits the more sophisticated user and puts more power into Apple/Google's hands than I'd like.

It's 10 years later now and it's time to fill in some of the holes. Allowing alternative appstores would be a good start and wouldn't affect most users who are happy with the app store as is. Removing anti-competitive curation rules and practices would be good too.

Why would Apple give up their 30% margins? It makes no sense. Not until they're somehow forced into it, anyway.

I completely agree with that point, and make the same recommendations to people around me for the exact same reason.

However, you could very well imagine apple creating a sort of "third party app store guidelines" that would make it compulsory for third party app store to check apps for security violations prior to publishing an app.

Apple would then move one layer up. Instead of directly enforcing and distributing apps, it would enforce store basic rules, and leave some rules to others. Pretty much like what you'd do if you were to create a franchise.

There are intermediate grounds between "we control everything, and are the only one allowed to push apps" to "we allow everyone to install anything they want".

The idea is just to open this part of the market (app distribution) to competition.

I'm not sure why you were downvoted. This is legitimate reasoning and you are contributing to the conversation in a civilized manner.

There are absolutely tradeoffs of buying into a walled garden. I personally have mixed feelings. An open ecosystem sounds nice in ways. For example, on my mac, I would be very frustrated if I were locked into only being able to buy software from Apple's App Store. It would be a deal-breaker. However, I've never really found myself frustrated with the iPhone app ecosystem. However, I've definitely been saved hours and hours of family IT support by family members being on iOS.

The only thing required for that is no malware in the app store, not any of Apple's other restrictions on what you can put there.

It doesn't even require prohibiting independent app stores, all it requires is that adding one prompt for a separate password which you don't give to your MIL.

What if an independent app store, fails at adequately stopping malware from getting through? Is Apple going to ban the entire store then? Does Apple get to do that job for those stores instead? If the latter, does the App get reviewed both by Apple and the independent store? Does Apple get a cut in that scenario?

How do you install independent app stores to begin with? Do you install them with he App Store? That would put them at a disadvantage similar to how Microsoft put other Browsers at a disadvantage with IE. Do you provide a choice then when you setup the phone?

Purely from an anti-trust perspective I can see why the idea of independent app stores might seem appealing at first glance. Thinking about this just for a moment brings up so many questions though and I don't see how you can possibly come up with satisfying answers that lead to good security and a good user experience.

> What if an independent app store, fails at adequately stopping malware from getting through?

Then don't use that one. You don't have to use any but Apple's if you don't want to.

> How do you install independent app stores to begin with? Do you install them with he App Store? That would put them at a disadvantage similar to how Microsoft put other Browsers at a disadvantage with IE.

As opposed to the status quo?

One way to balance choice and safety is for Apple to share the data in their store and let people create app stores only as long as the store links within Apple's ecosystem. This really would just mean a different skin of sorts but perhaps there's a means of different approaches to app discovery possible.

Perhaps a middle ground is like what you can do on Android, by default is a walled garden without the capability of installing from third party sources but you can enable it with a very big and scary warning

The solution is education.

She should be thankful, not so long ago people would loose their life being stupid and those genes wouldn't pass on. I guess idiocracy is inevitable.

Any explanation for the downvotes?

Not a downvoter but the reasoning that criminal action means we should give up the promise of general computation and freedom to use devices we "own" as we choose for walled gardens that massively enrich corporate gatekeepers is repugnant. We should catch criminals, fix security problems, maximise openness of platforms and competition and distribute wealth to a multitude of small independent creators instead of middlemen rent-seekers.

So, hypothetically, if Apple/Google decided to reduce their 30% cut to 0%, would you still perceive them as "repugnant" "middlemen rent-seekers"?

Somehow, typical prices for software on app stores are considerably lower than independently distributed software was. Apple seems to have succeeded at commoditizing their complements, even ignoring the cut they take. I'm not sure how this got established as the equilibrium, but as a developer I don't want to participate in that role, and as a user I wish there was more great software, and suspect there would be if it hadn't become so commoditized.

(I also agree that walled gardens are bad for freedom.)

This is definitely the case on mobile where everything has been driven to 99c or free, but the Mac App Store still has a healthy range of prices, including a bunch of desktop software in the $20-$100 range.

The argument above for walled-gardens is repugnant because its an argument for a totalitarian police state. Removing rent-seeking does not address anti-competitiveness or destruction of fundamental computational freedoms.

Gardens (safe curated places) are nice things to have but if you erect walls preventing us from leaving they become abusive. Rent-seeking is one of those abuses. Let us have many gardens and let them compete for our presence by the value they can bring.

Our industry's unparalleled track record of success catching criminals, fixing security problems, creating usable and secure software, and so forth continue to provide a great platform for end users. That's why online account theft, hacking, and malware are increasingly small problems.

Abject failure for 20+ years is no reason to believe this won't work any day now.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com