Hacker News Reader

Comment by jmrobertson | Hacker News Reader

Right, so imagine separating Apple/Google totally from its current oversight position, and having a totally open app store. Like the world _just_ got past learning not to click 'download here!' on a browser, and that was after 20 years of the internet. I'd be open to alternative proposals, but separating the App Store with no replacement is not a secure solution by any means and causes more problems than it solves, assuming a secure app store is the most important trait of an app store.

View on HN

>Right, so imagine separating Apple/Google totally from its current oversight position, and having a totally open app store

That's not the point. The point is that Netflix, HBO, Spotify, et. al. have to pay the 30% Apple/Google tax while the movie, music, etc. products from Apple/Google don't.

Warren's proposed rule is, effectively, you can produce something or you can sell something, but not both. Apple would need to decide if they want to be an app maker or an app seller.

I don't understand why people should not be permitted to go to netflix.com to install the netflix app, or to twitter.com etc etc

Because then they'd install a fake Netflix malware from getnetflix.com

that gets into interesting Human-Comp Interaction discussions, but a good place to start is that the HCI dynamic of mobile/tablet platforms is totally different (deliberately) from that traditional approach to browsers. So I guess it could be done, but relying on that approach undermines a lot of what make mobile platforms 'mobile platforms.'

its not about workflow, its about not allowing sideloaded apps. the question is whether it is pro or anti consumer? does it hurt the consumer to pay 30% apple tax for netflix, or does the walled garden benefit the consumer by protecting them?

I obviously have the view that the walled garden benefits consumers, so my bias shows. And, I think there's a lot of wiggle room on the cost to host in the App store.

However, US monopoly law is based on consumer harm, so...

I think on a mobile platform, with plenty of competition to not buy an iOS-based phone, a walled garden absolutely benefits consumers more than it hurts. There is so much PII on phones now. Given the total lack of InfoSec knowledge, especially at the mobile-user level, a walled garden is crucial: see every Google Store vuln that hasn't hit Apple.

Theres a pretty good argument to be made that it nearly eliminates piracy, and is good for business too.

my dudes: charge yearly $$ to get a cert that allows you to request permissions higher than "access {camera, location while in use, microphone}" and most of the truly harsh PII issues go away afaict

the harm isn't consumer oriented, since it's somewhat diffuse, it's about concentration of market power in the industry.

we could live in a world where you target one distribution platform, and phone vendors compete to police malware, but instead we have walled gardens that police content & economically lock you to their environments and don't even do a good job about malware

>the harm isn't consumer oriented, since it's somewhat diffuse, it's about concentration of market power in the industry.

That's true, but that's not how anti-trust law works in the US unfortunately. It's consumer-harm based.

different from _desktops_, but pointedly not browsers. from a HCI standpoint it's actually quite similar to browsers: sandboxed point and click

You obviously have never had to clean malware from people’s computers because they installed what they thought was a legitimate app or printer driver.

You can make and distribute your own app on Android and totally bypass Google Play already.

Also - having a security policy is different than taking a 30% cut of all commercial activity on the platform.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com