Hacker News Reader

Comment by seibelj | Hacker News Reader

Having only one app store allowed on a device is anti-competitive and is an area where I would approve regulators forcing changes. The fact that Apple has exclusive right to approve what I can install, and then extracts monopoly rent on top of depriving me of software, should be banned.

View on HN

Banned on what grounds? Apple doesn't have a monopoly, so there's no anticompetitive angle here.

They have a monopoly on what can be installed on my phone, and censor what gets into the app store, so they are therefore censoring me.

They don't control it though, you could root your phone and install whatever you want.

This isn't always an option, and may violate the DMCA

None of those words mean what you are implying it means.

This only matters if they're the only platform available. But, they're not. You can use Android, its forks, or otherwise. While one can be philosophically opposed to their walled-garden, there is zero legal ground to stand on to regulate Apple in this regard when they are not a monopoly as defined by law.

They have the right to control what is available in their own app store, whether we like it or not.

Calling their control "monopoly" and "censorship" really dilutes the actual meaning of both terms

Sounds like you are talking cross purposes. S/He argues for changing the law and you are explaining the current law.

That wasn't very clear from the original posts, as they discussed anti-competitive behavior and regulators, not new legislation to be written. To me this implied a desire for them to be regulated under current law, which may have been my mistake in reading it.

It makes more sense read with new legislation being the intent, so you have a point.

That said, that type of regulation seems overly heavy-handed IMHO, and I'm typically not an anti-regulation type of person.

You don't have to use their phone you know. Android is substantially better about this, different app stores are possible.

First world problems, eh?

You gave them your blessing to do all this and more when you bought the phone and didn't reject it when you read their terms and conditions for its usage.

iOS has always been a walled garden. Apple is proud of that fact.

I'm sure nobody could stop you putting your own OS on top, or hacking it wide open... But I don't think you have any right to force Apple to alter their software to allow you to do anything.

If you have 2-3 platforms that all have the same restrictions you may not have a monopoly, but you have a cartel in control of the market. Thats pretty anticompetitive IMO.

Apple has monopoly on their store and they have ability to play kingmakers on other platforms with app developers in every niche. Without presence on all relevant platforms your product or service will die off.

Android allows as many app stores on device as you'd like. Popular ones include f-droid and Amazon store. Both can be easily installed without rooting by simply downloading them from the web. Both provide app signing, updates, and authentication.

You are allowed to install other app stores on a android device.You can even install apps from unknown sources.But you need to be responsible for your own security.

However, you can't install other app stores from the Play Store itself. That seems pretty anti-competitive. Google also bans ad-blockers from its Play Store. Why? Because they interfere with its business model. Again, anti-competitive. No different than Verizon banning Skype from its network.

It's a shame the EC didn't hit Google over these, too.

You can install ad blocking web browsers just fine. The rule is that you can't publish an app that interferes with another app.

It's kinda a chain of trust. One of the value of the Play Store is that you trust it not to include malware (if you do). If they allowed other app stores to be installed through it, google can't be confident in saying if you use our store, you won't get malware.

You trust the Google Play Store not to have malware?

It's certainly far more trustworthy than the iOS app store and Chinese app stores, all by a wide margin.

Based on what metric? Google doesn’t even pretend to review apps and the Google app permissions framework is laughable.

Based on total malware installs, where Apple has everybody beat by even just Xcodeghost alone.

Google doesn't pretend that manually reviewing apps prevents malware because it obviously (to any software engineer) doesn't. It does, however do both static and dynamic analysis of the apps in its store, unlike Apple and the Chinese app stores.

And that really hasn’t help. Xcodeghost basically affected the Chinese App Store where app authors downloaded a non Apple hosted version of Xcode.

https://us.norton.com/internetsecurity-mobile-android-vs-ios...

https://www.sophos.com/en-us/security-news-trends/security-t...

That doesn’t even consider all of the unpatched Android security holes.

https://www.esecurityplanet.com/mobile-security/how-secure-i...

Or the fact that most Android phones are running older versions that will never get patched.

https://developer.android.com/about/dashboards/

Compared to iPhones running the latest versions....

https://www.digitaltrends.com/mobile/ios-distribution-news/

There is no "Chinese app store" for iDevices. Anybody who downloaded WeChat anywhere in the world was affected.

Trying to bring uo unpatched devices is changing the subject (security-conscious people use Android devices that get regular security updates) — we were talking about app stores. It remains a fact that far more people have been infected with malware from the Apple App Store than from all other app stores combined.

People who care about security use devices that get updates - that’s true. They buy iOS devices.

Which Android devices get regular updates for over 2 years? 3 years? 5 years?

Android is insecure by design - since most devices can’t be updated. Unlike iOS devices that get updated regularly worldwide without waiting on the carrier.

And I posted links showing that Android is not as secure. Do you have any links to back up your claims?

That doesn't sound anticompetitive in the least. Alternative stores are allowed on Android; Google just isn't going to bend over backwards to do everything for you.

Google allows basically everything on the Play Store. To not specifically restrict their competition would not be "bending over backwards" at all.

you need to be responsible for your own security.

Or they could make sandboxing actually work.

if you can produce a flawless, performant, sandbox, fame and fortune awaits you.

I am not aware that anyone has ever made this work. Full VMs are escapable, iOS jails have been broken and even permissions technically allowed can be abused, etc. There is room to improve, but "just make it impossible to escape the sandbox" is massively oversimplifying. It also makes it harder to make useful apps if you reduce API surface.

You have plenty of choices. You can choose to buy an Android device like 80% of the rest of the world....

Do you feel that Nintendo, Sony, and Microsoft should also be forced to open up their platforms?

And yes, they also approve physical game sales and you can’t run a physical disk on either platform without it being cryptographically signed.

They don't. You can go buy a different phone.

I like my iPhone, I just wish I could install software not approved by Apple censors.

Then buy a different phone.

You can. Just deploy the software directly to the device using Xcode.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com