Comment by _bxg1 | Hacker News Reader

Comment by _bxg1 | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

This is a good argument for having multiple app stores. I don't totally blame Apple's devs here: it's completely imaginable that small, innocent changes in what's no doubt an enormous codebase could have totally unpredictable effects on individual search rankings.

The problem is that there's only a single point of articulation. If half a dozen app stores all got search results "mostly right", then little variations like this wouldn't sink a business. This is far from the only example of the single-platform effect. Facebook gets (or is forced) to be the arbiter of free speech. YouTube gets (or is forced) to be the arbiter of copyright claims. In the world of PC games, for contrast, Steam's algorithms can't totally sink a game because they don't have a total monopoly. There's itch.io, GOG, and now Epic. You can go to other platforms (or all of them!).

I love Apple's app store. I love how hard they fight to protect their customers from exploitative and dangerous software. I feel safe downloading apps there in a way that I didn't on Google Play. But monopolies are bad, even in the rare cases where they don't degrade the quality of the product.

This is a big part of why, as an app user, I'm pretty unhappy with Apple's long-running string of decisions to effectively bottleneck app discovery to the App Store. It just doesn't matter how good the App Store is, it cannot possibly scale to embody the diversity of interests that is today's mobile app ecosystem.

Most recently, there was the decision to discontinue the affiliate referral program. Perhaps this was not "moving the numbers" significantly from Apple's perspective, but it did severely impact some sites that were great at covering domain-specific app niches in detail. And unlike Apple's in-house editorial, these were sites with writers with actual names meaning you can track their 1) quality of writing and 2) how the writer's individual preferences mesh with your own over time.

Related to that, Apple went on a bit of a "buying spree" from the independent Apple journalist community and the bylines of some writers I really liked just ... vanished. They're still out there, still writing, but part of the faceless Clone Army of Apple editorial. :-( So I'm glad those folks have stable jobs, but I'm mad at Apple for undermining good, independent tech journalism.

Going back further, to the misty dawn of the App Store, there's Apple's long-standing blockade on any app that functions like the App Store, i.e. curated app editorial. This essentially shut down another first-class (here, meaning "app") venue for app-centric selection.

Yeah, I agree. I hope the legal system forces Apple to allow opt-in third party app stores. Would go a long way towards alleviating these kinds of situations.

Why should the legal system force Apple to do this? I get that it would prevent this type of scenario, but why should the the law care about this scenario at all?

Apple is arguably acting as a monopolist abusing its market position in violation of anti-trust laws. Apple takes a 30% cut on App Store purchases, potentially much higher than they would be able to if they didn't stifle competition. The Supreme Court recently ruled against Apple in Apple v. Pepper [1] on the question of whether purchasers of apps have standing to sue Apple. The case now goes back to the district court to decide the merits of the case.

[1] https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/18pdf/17-204_bq7d.pdf

Why should MS be forced to promote alternatives to IE?

MS had a monopoly on x86 operating systems, Apple does not have a monopoly on ARM operating systems.

How is this anything but a category error? Just as there are phones other than Apple's, there were computers other than Wintel boxes.

I see nothing wrong with society demanding more accountability from those with more economic importance.

> Just as there are phones other than Apple's, there were computers other than Wintel boxes

Well the specific numbers matter, don't they? Microsoft had a massive overwhelming monopoly whereas iOS has healthy competition in Android.

> I see nothing wrong with society demanding more accountability from those with more economic importance.

I don't disagree, but why should we specifically target Apple's app store rather than say, for example, passing a law that prohibits selling locked down hardware that prevents the user from installing whatever software they choose?

Because it's less healthy for capitalism, and the government cares how the economy does.

In theory, anything that increases competition is healthier for capitalism, but that doesn't mean that "anything that increases competition" should be mandated by law. Why should opening Apple's platform to other App Stores be mandated by law?

personally, i don’t want any more “stores”...

like social media,i don’t think we don’t need multiple committees and algorithms deciding to delist or not, what we need is a totally decentralized way to sign and notarize an app (to prove it doesn’t contain any malware etc) and provide it from ones own website (as an option)

worst case google changes their algorithm, you can still send an email, print and ad, make a poster for on the train whatever and people can go to your website etc

i would prefer that much more than relying on just app stores

I complained about this early on.

I thought "give them time, and they'll come up with something better - better searching, better categories, better filters, make discovery smart and useful"

I thought, "they almost have 100,000 apps in the store, they will have to get this right to survive!"

so... yeah.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com