Hacker News Reader

> I want a world where we're free to install whatever we want on our devices or distribute our hard work to others without having to implement it 5 different ways.

I do too, but your appeal to emotion is off-topic. This has nothing to do with the lawsuit. None of these companies want that, nor are they working toward that. Epic and Spotify are pushing their own walled gardens, they just want to do it with a bigger profit margin.

Basecamp and Tile want walled gardens?

Epic and Spotify.

Sure, but what about the other names on the list? People are selectively focusing on only the major companies and neglecting that others have legitimate grievances.

This article is about them, it makes sense that would be the focus.

The downvotes for your parent and your follow-up retort don't make sense.

I'm also backing these companies' argument and I don't want a walled garden. I want an open and competitive marketplace. I want to be able to distribute my software to everyone (like I used to be able to do).

Are you not able to distribute your software to iOS devices?

> Epic and Spotify are pushing their own walled gardens, they just want to do it with a bigger profit margin.

There is absolutely no problem with that because it cures the one and only walled garden problem. If they implement a subpar walled garden, it will be up to the users to exercise choice on using them, which they currently can't.

This is the core of the opponent processes of markets. It is irrelevant to demand ideological purity from opponents, what matters is the resulting dynamics their actions create, in this case creating a previously non-existing competition space on iOS app installs.

Just for reference Epic has already shown us their playbook on how they plan to bootstrap a separate marketplace with the Epic Games Store on PC.

Namely, paying for exclusivity onto their store (or more accurately paying for the developer to not release onto Steam - the current incumbent). I'm not sure how you can argue that they are helping users exercise choice when this is behavior they already engage in.

The users are free to choose not to buy those games. If the developers offered you a deal you don't like, don't take it.

Once Apple is legally required to allow third party app stores it will be possible to create open ones as well.

Like f-droid , for iOS

> If they implement a subpar walled garden, it will be up to the users to exercise choice on using them, which they currently can't.

Epic games store is a very subpar walled garden. It's the only way to access several games that are either in exclusivity agreements with Epic or were purchased by Epic outright (RIP Rocket League). Spotify is (IMHO) a subpar walled garden. They recently purchased exclusivity for Joe Rogan, if you want to listen to him in the future you have to use Spotify. I don't see where in this process I get a choice of anything. These companies are not fighting for consumer choice, they just want to move more power over the consumer from one middle man (Apple) to another (themselves).

I very much agree, but...

> They recently purchased exclusivity for Joe Rogan, if you want to listen to him in the future you have to use Spotify.

Joe Rogan's podcast is anti-science crap. That it moved to a walled garden, restricting access to it, I find that as being a gift to the world.

Eh. Not a fan myself, but it's a good example of highly popular content that Spotify is using to restrict consumer choice and promote their own platform.

> None of these companies want that, nor are they working toward that.

Being able to choose to run whatever you want on your own device is a necessary first step to opening up app stores to competition.

They support the ideal because it's the only way to get what they want. It's a mistake to assume that since they are doing it for their own benefit that we all can't benefit as well.

1. I could be wrong, but I do not consider Apple to have a "monopoly" here due to the quality and availability of Android devices.

> I want a world where we're free to install whatever we want on our devices or distribute our hard work to others without having to implement it 5 different ways.

That's lovely and all, but that has never existed? I don't understand how you would even accomplish this.

> I don't want to be taxed by entities worth trillions. Before they stood up the walls, I could reach all the people I wanted for free. Now they've turned us into poor serfs.

What does this even mean?! You could never reach "all the people" for free?

> he last bastion, the web, is even under attack...

Fair

> These rent-seeking companies took all of the goodwill and amazing technology we developed in the open

Who is "we"? Are we including the department of defense in "we"? Bell labs?

If you have a point, make your point. Tell me what specifically you take issue with in the original comment.

The "bad behavior"? Are you joking. You realize people pay apple EXTRA because they value their product? Their product holds its value far LONGER on the secondary market because it is maintained so well?

You can get unlocked android phones and install whatever you want. But the reality for our parents / grandparents etc is that the folks who want to have root on their device want to scam them, auto bill them with non-cancelable billing etc etc etc, market to them by tracking everything, turn all their data over to the govt.

We have basically one company who is trying to do a consumer / privacy first play. They went toe to toe with the DOJ to avoid unlocking the phone of a known shooter.

As more and more of our life lands on these devices, I think this is the smart play. Go use another phone if you don't like it.

> Go use another phone if you don't like it.

Half of my audience is on your favorite device. I didn't have to pay for them before Apple sunk their claws in.

Even if there wasn't a tax, the lack of freedom is what really gets me. Apple built itself atop open source. They leveraged it to gain control over 40% of the CPUs used by consumers. Now we can't run code for these people.

I applaud their privacy stance. But freedom to run software is a separate issue.

My experience with freedom to run software resulted in me spending an inordinate amount of time dealing with malware.

If anyone wants to come up with a freedom to run software alternative that doesn’t result in me dealing with malware, I’m open to it.

Until then, I have to pay Apple, because I don’t have time to deal with the alternatives currently available.

Edit:

>Half of my audience is on your favorite device. I didn't have to pay for them before Apple sunk their claws in.

I might be part of that audience, but when I was purchasing tablets for my business, I chose Apple, because I didn’t want to deal with malware or google support. I knew I could rely on Apple to not have malware and to provide in person support in reasonable time. I’m also willing to pay 30% extra for a subscription via the App Store since I know it’s dead easy to cancel it.

I am aware of Apple’s injustices with their arbitrary rules and enforcement and how they are able to screw over developers. But I need to move on with life, and I need something that just works.

Is the macOS ecosystem filled with malware?

I don't know what you mean by filled, but I know malware exists for macOS. I am not aware of malware for iOS.

Having an alternative to the App Store doesn't mean you have to stop using the App Store, or suffer any reduction in quality in the apps available on the App Store. Nothing changes for you in exchange for more freedom for others.

I assume a device's security is improved by being hampering the ability to install software. Can I rely on an Android device to not be tampered with or have malware just as much as I can an iOS device?

I don't mean secure as in the NSA can't break into it. I mean secure as in normal people can't mess it up clicking bullshit links in WhatsApp messages.

I'm guessing you don't use Android at all, but it is very difficult to accidentally install something outside of the play store. I would even say it is tricky to purposely install something outside of the play store.

I did from 2010 to 2015 and while I didn't have a problem, my dad was able to get malware on his. He actually was iOS from 2010 to 2014 then android 2015 to 2018, and then he kept messing his device up so I told him I'm not helping him unless he goes to iOS.

All I know is I needed a 100% guarantee the device won't be tampered with by random people for my business and that other than turning it off and on, there was no tech support needed. To me, this meant going with Apple.

Do you know the specific method he got malware on his device? Because people assume that Android malware are from secondary illicit app stores, and not just malware that was not caught on Google's inferior official Play Store, or from exploits at the OS level.

No, I didn't bother researching that. My dad very well might have gone in the options settings and disabled some stuff if the WhatsApp message instructions told him to to get something he wanted. He has, for some unknown reason, the desire to trust all the things he shouldn't, and for him I need a device that simply can't be touched.

Especially since nowadays your financial accounts and everything is secured via SMS 2FA.

Fair enough, but again the whole anti-alternate app stores narrative hinges on the supposition that these app stores will be a significant source of malware. I'm wondering if there are any Android security studies that proves or disproves that point.

Yes, Google publishes a security report that indicates that devices that side-load apps have an 8x higher malware incidence compared to devices that only use the Play Store. (https://source.android.com/security/reports/Google_Android_S...)

As an example, HummingBad infected 85 million devices primarily via direct-download on malicious adult websites. (https://www.zdnet.com/article/this-android-malware-has-infec...)

So it looks like allowing users to easily sideload apps, let alone direct download and install binaries from mobile web, is problematic. Their stats on third-party app stores seems more scanty.

> In 2018, hostile downloaders made up 22.0% of all sideloaded PHAs, making this the third most prevalent category, as in 2017. While this category accounted for 0.39% of all sideloaded apps in 2017, it is down to 0.20% in 2018, a sharp decline. Last year, Trojans were particularly targeting devices in India, Indonesia, Russia, Brazil, and Mexico.

> The prevalence of hostile downloaders is due to a combination of legitimate third-party stores with poor security setups that distribute PHAs, fake stores that are built specifically for spreading PHAs, pre-installed apps that slipped through the security scans of OEMs, and plain apps that pretend to (or actually do) offer user-wanted features while downloading PHAs in the background.

Android has an "allow software from unknown sources" option buried in the settings menu. As long as you don't specifically go looking for that option and THEN approve the source of the .apk file and THEN click install on the system dialog, you can't accidentally install non-play-store software.

Yeah until Facebook moves all their apps to their own App Store so they don’t have to deal with all of Apple’s pesky privacy rules.

What privacy rules would those be? Why would iOS privacy settings be affected by the install method? What would be different from the Facebook SDK that's already installed in millions of apps on the App Store today?

Abusing private APIs would be a major issues. Binaries uploaded to the App Store are inspected to ensure that they aren't abusing any private APIs. Facebook controlling their own store would allow them to circumvent this check. In the past, private APIs have been used to track users, amongst other malicious behaviour.

What kind of inspection? The App Store review is not that in-depth and has frequently let through many apps that were leaking private details.

And again, how does this affect iOS system level privacy settings and protections? App permissions and warnings don't change.

They'd suffer massive public blowback for that, atop all of their PR woes that's been mounting each year since the 2016 U.S. elections.

I use Android, and the Google and Amazon Android devices combined have had less malware infections than iOS despite having vastly more users. I get to run my own apps on my device without telling anybody, so there is also more privacy. You've been hoodwinked into supporting a restrictive platform that benefits only Apple.

> But freedom to run software is a separate issue.

It isn't, because it's tied to security.

I don't understand why a company, like Apple, shouldn't be allowed to create locked-down devices.

This practice isn't new either. Locked down game consoles have existed since the dawn of computing. What makes this situation special? Don't like it, then don't buy it.

Speaking of the situation at hand, Epic did in fact distribute Fortnite outside of Google Play. Until they eventually caved, because distribution via Google Play is more lucrative.

This isn't about your freedom, they couldn't care less. This is about them making Apple succumb to their demands, while still using the App Store as a distribution channel.

And yes, it matters what "champions" are fighting for your "freedoms". When the likes of Epic are your champion, maybe you're on the wrong side of it.

Can you explain what blocking services like XCloud and Stadia has to do with security or privacy? Many of the policies are about a pure money grab.

One reason might be related to xCloud bypassing Apple's parental controls for both screen time and in-app purchasing that Apple requires for games distributed via the App Store. I expect Microsoft will work with Apple to resolve these issues and xCloud will be eventually be released in the App Store once they are resolved.

> Half of my audience is on your favorite device. I didn't have to pay for them before Apple sunk their claws in.

A big part of the reason why I bought an iPhone is the App Store. That’s because the App Store imposes rules on software developers, such as Facebook, which have consistently proven that they don’t particularly care about privacy, security or other user-centric concerns. If I felt like I could trust these developers, maybe I wouldn’t be on an iPhone. But they haven’t earned my trust.

> "Go use another phone if you don't like it."

We, as consumers, should demand better behavior from trillion dollar corporations before they run our lives completely.

Would you please not post in the flamewar style to HN? Your comments in this thread are standing out as particularly flamebaity. We're trying to avoid that here.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

It's sad that people fall for the "privacy first". I recently got a new Macbook and opting out of the cloud services was a real hassle, and sometimes the settings pop back on updates. Apple wants your data, they just don't want anybody else to have it.

I buy some of my devices from apple because I like the hardware. The walled garden is annoying and has nothing to do with resale value. The resale value is high because of continuing updates and nice hardware - you'd factory reset everything you buy second hand anyway.

>I'm honestly depressed because people rush to defend bad behavior of their favorite monopoly.

While techies lived in their utopia, the rest of us without the ability to compile from source were tricked into downloading spyware, profiled, and scammed from dubious "developers". These problems were known, but nothing was done about them in the name of "developer freedom".

A company comes along and offers the vast majority of people a safe computing environment at a premium. Surprise, surprise most people choose that and instead of having to trust N-developers to not do everything in their power to get a quick buck, I only have to trust 1, Apple, to do the filtering.

The problem that I'm starting to see is most people here, being developers, naturally side themselves against Apple. The alternate perspective I have is that most developers are actually user hostile and Apple is the only one that has repeatedly shown to value my dollars over abusing my data or privacy. So, no, I'm not "rooting" for Epic after the games industry and repeatedly shown they will abuse children with gambling mechanics. Why should fight for Match Group's rights at the detriment to my own?

Is a happy delusion preferable to a miserable reality?

The App Store has become a virtual Truman Show. As long as you don't look beyond its simulated reality, it's a happy place.

Developers have the perspective and ability to look behind the curtains. And what they find there is a truly miserable reality of unfair practices, deceptions, and even censorship.

The philosophical answer to the question above has long been given. In the end, a miserable reality is always preferable to a happy delusion. And it's only a matter of time until "ordinary" users will discover that harsh truth themselves.

Being a bit more unprotected is a small price in exchange to not losing your freedom.

>Is a happy delusion preferable to a miserable reality?

Your miserable reality is one where:

* Nation-states have full access to location data to many Americans

* Ad companies abusing user data to push questionable products

* Moneyed interests spreading disinformation through hypertargetting.

This isn't hyperbole. Snowden already showed the length the USG was willing to go (1). Facebook is currently under fire for (2) and (3).

So yes, I'd gladly trade away my freedom in my pocket toy to ensure I retain my freedoms in my everyday life. If it's unfair that Epic has to charge a 30% markup on "v-bucks" so be it. The Developer complaints, deceptions and censorship have been so laughably elementary compared to the level abuse that Apple's wall garden prevents. It, again, shows the level blindness that utopians who can build from source have ignored.

If I cared about device freedom, there are plenty of phones on the market that provide that. However I have explicitly bought into Apple's platform in order to prevent developers from doing whatever they wish on my device.

Your logical fallacy is to believe that you will retain your everyday life freedoms that way. The lines between digital and real life are already blurring. You will lose freedom in both this way.

I hope for you that we utopians won't have to rescue you one day with our ability to build from source. If enough of your kind would exist, we might all be working for the FANGS and nobody will be there for you anymore.

What does blocking XCloud and Stadia have to do with security and privacy? Many of the policies are about money while destroying developer freedom.

> I want a world where we're free to install whatever we want on our devices

We all have different opinions, so we're never going to get everything in this world to adhere to the same ideals. If you don't like Apple's approach as a consumer, use Android. Some of us like that Apple locks things down very tightly and want it to remain. It's not a perfect solution, but neither is Google's approach, so it's nice that there are two very different options.

> or distribute our hard work to others without having to implement it 5 different ways.

Even if Apple allows sideloading, this problem will still exist.

> Your perspective makes me sad. I'm honestly depressed because people rush to defend bad behavior of their favorite monopoly. Like, physically holding back tears. Serious.

As long as there's no law where if a company refuses to cancel a "recurring billing" with the same number of clicks that was done to create a recurring billing a customer can immediately collect N times the amount of subscription value from the company the likes of Epic, Match and Spotify can go and eff themselves. Customers like app store payments because the alternatives demonstrated to be swindling scum.

Apple doesn’t even have 50% of the smartphone market.

It sounds like you’re an App developer so perhaps it would be more honest to just explicitly state that you want to make more money rather than claim youre on the verge of tears?

> Apple doesn’t even have 50% of the smartphone market.

It looks like they command between 33% and 46% of sales in the US per quarter. [1]

That's a lot of people. Many of them use their iPhone as their only computer.

> It sounds like you’re an App developer so perhaps it would be more honest to just explicitly state that you want to make more money

I want freedom back.

I have projects that make zero money that I want to run. I also don't want to have to have an Apple SDK license or write it in their chosen technology or be required to follow their stringent UI guidelines because my audience is niche and doesn't care about that. My time on this earth is too limited to jump through more hoops.

I also don't want to have my app deleted because I'm protesting them.

Dealing with Apple is like living under an authoritarian regime. We don't have any choice but to deal with them because of the power they wield.

[1] https://www.statista.com/statistics/620805/smartphone-sales-...

> Dealing with Apple is like living under an authoritarian regime. We don't have any choice but to deal with them because of the power they wield.

I’m not sure I’m following. You are being forced to develop for Apple devices against your will?

Given that the majority of paying customers are on iOS, it's certainly a strong incentive for app developers to target that platform.

Apple doesn’t even have 50% of the smartphone market.

It sounds like you’re an App developer so perhaps it would be more honest to just explicitly state that you want to make more money rather than claim your on the verge of tears?

> I'm honestly depressed because people rush to defend bad behavior of their favorite monopoly.

In favor of supporting a cartel who will essentially have the same power? I don't think the OP was defending Apple, just that the antagonist is likely just as awful.

What is wrong is that somehow we believe that if you set up a system where the end goal is growth by any means necessary unless explicitly disallowed by law is the moral thing to do it'll turn out any different.

Genuine question, can you expand on what you mean by this:

> Before they stood up the walls, I could reach all the people I wanted for free.

What are you referring to? Blogging, social networks, forums, etc.?

The web and web downloads were 100% of the distribution channel.

Now you can't distribute binaries without oversight and taxation.

Also, web browsers on mobile are much less capable than on desktop.

Thanks for the response. When you say

> Now you can't distribute binaries without oversight and taxation.

do you mean selling software?

On a slightly different note, I'm curious about how much of the change in your experience of the internet comes down to a change in its user base. I'm not sure when this happened, but I think the vast majority of internet users now consists of people who don't care about these issues at all, for better or for worse.

This is the same as game consoles, so it has been the case for a long time. Consumers seem completely fine with relaxing that constraint if everything else “Just works”.

Once you are no longer twelve, life's too fucking short to spend forever configuring your new graphics card unless you have explicitly decided that being A Gamer is your hobby.

The problem is when you let companies run free they do bad things. There are bad actors out there and apples wall garden keeps them at bay and in check. I LIKE not having to worry about what I install from the App Store. Adding random apks or even downloading anything from the play store can legitimately be unsafe.

At that I don’t trust companies with credit cards and subscriptions - I trust apple. I get an email for every renewal, but every charge, and cancelling is easy. Other stores and companies do not do that because letting you know means less money for then.

> Adding random apks or even downloading anything from the play store can legitimately be unsafe.

It has been unsafe, but Android was designed with this in mind and is continually improving its security model. For instance, Android 11 added a regular check-in for permissions you have granted to apps and tightened a bunch of other loose ends like background location access.

(In general, barring unpatched security vulnerabilities, it's about as unsafe as blindly clicking things in your web browser, or believing the weird robot that calls you every day really should know your bank account number. You can try to help this using technology, but it is not a technology problem).

Apple does the same kind of work all the time, tightening sandboxes and patching vulnerabilities, but they always have the crutch of app reviews to fall back on. But it is completely wrong to believe that crutch is the thing between iOS as a reliable platform and iOS as a malware-ridden hellscape. That's what Apple wants you to think, but their developers are not actually that stupid.

For evidence on how you can build a solid, reasonably secure platform without this kind of crutch, you might consider Linux on servers, desktop MacOS, modern desktop Linux (particularly stuff like Fedora Silverblue), even modern Windows. This is not a solved problem by any means, but it's solved enough that giving up, closing the gate and throwing away the key is completely counter-productive.

Your theory doesn't match the actual statistics:

Among smartphones, Android™ devices are the most commonly targeted by malware. In mobile networks, Android devices were responsible for 47.15% of the observed malware infections, Windows©/ PCs for 35.82%, IoT for 16.17% and iPhones© for less than 1%.

Nokia Threat Intelligence Report (https://onestore.nokia.com/asset/205835)

The fact that this person opinion on the app store makes you cry may say more about you than them..