Hacker News Reader

Comment by Kequc | Hacker News Reader

This is an argument against the authoritarian character of the Apple App Store and by extension it's operating system that doesn't allow you to use anything else. Does anybody actually like having a walled off heavily regulated user experience after they've spent so much money on a device?

Or are people still just pretending they do. Without having even so much as the option of installing a third party application without going through the Apple App Store. Seems like stretching it, nobody can like that.

He should be able to sell the App standalone. There is no technical reason why not, it's a political one from Apple to artificially limit this functionality. They spent money making sure you couldn't do it.

View on HN

Not exactly your argument, but I much prefer the App Store to something like Google's Play Store. App Store, even though it has its issues, is a lot better simply because there is more oversight. There have been numerous cases where malware has gotten into Play Store apps, and only taken down once someone tells Google, instead of Google actually doing their due diligence as arbiters of the Play Store and verify each app before allowing it to publish. Apple does actually verify each app, and consequences aside this means I don't really have to worry about malware issues.

It would be nice if I could install something on my own, e.g. side-load an app, but I haven't come across an app that I've seemingly needed that for. I think the fact that you can only go through the App Store also keeps things consistent for the consumer, so they don't wonder why they sometimes have to install it using iTunes, sometimes through the App Store. Of course there's also the economics of Apple's 30% cut of App Store app purchases.

The apple app store doesn't prevent malware either. Reviews are done by just using the app and running an automated program on it.

If you turn off your malware features during review time, then it wont be caught. There is a good chance your malware behavior wouldn't be caught even if they were on.

After you've released the app, it's up to users to report the bad behavior to apple.

Also the OS is far more locked down than android and devices are frequently updated, which limits what malware can do.

At risk of raining on your parade a bit, the underlying complaint was from Google, not Apple. ("This comes after multiple requests and threats by YouTube which ultimately led Apple to suddenly pulling the app from the App Store.") You're trying to make this all about Apple and the Walled Garden™, but the story as described by ProTube's author is rather more complicated than that. In an alternate universe where Apple let people sideload applications, the outcome isn't "ProTube 2 keeps being sold and everyone is happy," the outcome is "Google sues ProTube 2's creator into destitution."

And, you know, while I'd like to see Apple allow sideloading of signed apps (I think in the long run it's essential if they're serious about making iOS a general purpose computing platform), it's just a bit on the presumptuous side to assert that all iOS users must surely be chafing under the heavy heel of Apple's Evil Draconian Rule. The number of application classes that aren't allowed on the App Store is, in practice, pretty small--it's just that developers and other Hacker News fans are more likely to want/need apps that do run afoul of those restrictions. Even so, the amount of stuff I can do right now with apps installed from the Evil Draconian App Store™ would probably surprise you.

It is about Apple, because they're policing their ecosystem on behalf of Google, rather than letting it be litigated in court.

I doubt this is massively different under flag-ship Android devices though. Mobile phones currently suck in this regard.

Who should be litigated against in this case, the author or Apple?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com