Hacker News Reader

Comment by danpalmer | Hacker News Reader

Ahh the App Store. It's just like the Play Store, except no viruses, far fewer scam apps, and there's a legitimate and thriving market for paid apps.

View on HN

This is not a matter of saying that a bad thing is good just because the counterpart is worse, I think that the dialog have to go a bit beyond that point. We lost control of the communication channels for the internet, it was meant to be free. This is the important topic.

In what sense is the app store a part of "the communication channels for the internet"?

The app store isn't. Apps are.

> We lost control of [Apps], it was meant to be free.

That makes even less sense.

You watch YouTube. You use an app in your phone that maybe in the future is going to be allowed only for Android devices. I think my case is settled.

The app stores you mentioned are inextricably to their respective operating systems. The problems with the Play Store are a compromise I'm willing to deal with so I can easily install apps using alternative app stores or none at all.

The store is their way to control their ecosystem, has nothing to do with the OS. This effort is a power-play against decentralized apps that threaten the centralized platform model.

Yes, but my point is that the Play Store inherently allows for competition and limit's Google's control because they chose to develop it on a platform that allows for competing app stores and sideloading. Regardless of Google's choices in managing the Play Store, that stark difference between Google's approach and Apple's approach remains.

> Play Store inherently allows for competition

Really?

https://play.google.com/intl/en_us/about/developer-distribut...

> (4.5) Alternative Stores. You may not use Google Play to distribute or make available any Product which has a purpose that facilitates the distribution of software applications and games for use on Android devices outside of Google Play.

You have no chance of bootstrapping an alternative store outside of Google Play. Sideloading APKs is not how users get software on Android. Amazon failed hard with their attempt, and they pumped tons of money into it by paying developers to give away their apps for free; that, and they shipped hardware that has their store preloaded. Still didn't even make a dent.

Well, there is advantages in Android approach too: as far I remember in App Store there is no emulators thanks to the stricter policies of Apple, while Play Store have genuine emulators for tons of gaming consoles. And you can also sideload apps without needing of jailbreak, allowing the use of interesting apps that for some reason is not allowed in Play Store (for example, NewPipe, a alternative YouTube client with tons of extra features).

No BitTorrent clients in the App Store either. So I have to watch everything on openload instead.

You compare the store to another sore while op compared it to the internet.

Yeah uh, I don't think they were attacking the Apple App Store specifically, the comment would read exact same if it were Google who removed the app. But sure, go ahead and knee-jerk defend your favorite corporation, that adds to the discussion.

But they remove any apps that might show boobs?

> But they remove any apps that might show boobs?

We are not much better, sadly. https://floens.github.io/Clover/gp_unavailable.txt

The problem I have with the App Store or Play Store or any of their ilk is that they are taking over the public space and making it a private space.

Imagine a city where public parks are all bought out by private entities, that is the Internet right now.

We have less and less public space in the digital world and that is not looking good for the future of democracy.

What are you arguing here? Why do some people always have to use the, "Well, at least we don't do what that other guy is doing!" (non)argument? Why can't we make arguments for or against what a single company has decided to do? Doesn't that make so much more sense?

This is a big plus for me. A vetted walled garden where I can give things a try without much fear of nasties is a big plus.

The problem isn't that the vetted app store exists. It is that the vetted app store controlled by the device manufacturer is the only way you are allowed to install applications

iPhone users (like myself) need to look no further than the Mac to see what a better alternative might be. The Mac only allows App Store or signed apps to be installed by default. However this setting can be toggled to allow any apps for those who need that. You can also toggle it to allow only vetted App Store apps if that’s what you prefer.

Apple could keep the default to what it is on the iPhone right now, but should at least allow signed apps from other stores as a non-default option, even if they don’t allow unsigned apps at all.

And Android has done it that way from Day 1.

My point being I knew that before I bought my iPhones/iPad. I actively like there being the one well kept store where things are verified and that apps can only be installed through. Granted not everyone will feel this way and I guess Android offers them more freedom in this respect.

You might enjoy F-Droid then. All apps are built from source from public repositories, with known malicious libraries stripped, with a broad definition of "malicious" (tracking and advertising). Also everything's free, in both senses. No need to wall up the garden.

You're stating this as if it is an argument against the parent's claims, but I fail to see how it is.

Why can't we have the best of both worlds? Apps that have been manually checked or curated can be marked as "Trusted/Certified" (similar to WHQL certified drivers), while others can be marked as "Untrusted/Use at your own risk".

Your comment seems a bit neurotic. Nobody was even talking about Apple vs Android.

It's always been Apple vs The Rest Of The World.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com