Hacker News Reader

Comment by sillysaurusx | Hacker News Reader

Apple has always wanted to block "browser" type apps. If it can be used to install or view hundreds of other apps, then it's probably not a good fit for the iOS garden.

We willingly give Apple money under this premise. I'm not sure why this is surprising.

View on HN

The situation is more complex.

For instance I have a subscription to a magazine publisher that pushes me any new issues of several magazines as they are published (roughly 10 to 20 every months). And the content of the subscription is not fixed, for a few months some magazines appeared, and other disappeared. Some of the content is gore/mature, while not straight porn.

The catch of course is that the subscription payment goes to Apple, and only Apple (no concurrent web version exists), and additional in-app purchases also go through Apple, no bypassing.

There is also audio subscriptions apps working on the same principles. The one I follow has been there for years.

Basically, as long as Apple gets a decent cut the "browser" nature or fine grain policing content doesn't seem to matter much.

That sounds good, what's the magazine app?

Kadokawa’s manga pre-publishing app, comic days (japanese only): https://apps.apple.com/jp/app/%E3%82%B3%E3%83%9F%E3%83%83%E3...

For those interested there is the equivalent for Jump comics and a few others (Pixiv etc.), those must also be available as web only subscriptions.

Thanks!

>We willingly give Apple money under this premise.

There are not enough competitors for this to actually be something you can choose. I use and will continue to use iphones because I care about privacy and updates. That doesn't mean I like what is happening with this case.

I agree but you're supporting the practice financially.

Apple does not support Privacy.

See PRISM

Then it should also ban other browsers, movie streaming apps, music streaming apps, ebook readers, etc. Be consistent.

It is consistent. There are fundamental differences between the apps you've mentioned and these game-streaming apps that clearly delineate why those are approved and why these are not.

I'll bite - what's the difference between a movie-streaming app and a game-streaming app?

There is none. Either can have content that would offend Apple's conservative American sensibilities, though I'd wager that more movies would than games.

If Apple thought they could get away with content policing movies, they surely would.

Netflix is bigger than the nascent game streaming market and more apple users (including me) expect to be able to use it. If they told netflix "we have to approve each movie and tv show on your service, and possibly take revenue from you on a per-video basis", then netflix would walk and would be smart to do so because it's pretty likely apple would come up the loser in that fight. Again, huge number of users, existing expectation of the status quo (i can stream from netflix on my device) from those users. Game streaming is new and not yet established to the general user base. Apple is in a huge position of power relative to game streaming and is using that to get the best possible deal.

As a devoted apple product user, these kind of behaviors really worry me. I understand that this is normal behavior for powerful organizations, but apple is making the user experience worse for money. I don't see how that ends well.

Your argument is that majority consensus overrides individual freedoms and that is preposterous.

That seems like a reductive interpretation. Can you explain which individual's freedoms are being overridden? And why is the argument preposterous?

I, the individual, cannot decide what content is allowed on my own Apple device which costs more than half a thousand dollars.

Yet the collective can decide at my expense: Netflix gets a free pass via the argument that Netflix's movies are somehow more important than the content I wish to experience.

It's great to see collective bargaining in action, for sure. I don't blame the people, and I don't blame Netflix. I blame Apple.

I think you’re kind of conflating what I believe is the ideal versus what I perceive to be reality.

We are one of billions of people. The fundamental nature of existence is that our sum ability to affect the world around is generally quite small in comparison to the sum of the consequences of others as a whole.

More people use Netflix, ergo Netflix has more leverage in negotiations with Apple. I don’t think that’s a particularly controversial conclusion?

The controversy is that this is an artificial phenomenon brought upon by Apple's blatant disregard of inalienable digital rights by refusing to allow a user to do as they please with their mobile personal computing platform.

There should be no leverage, and the fact that Netflix uses this privilege without taking a stand for others left behind is also controversial.

It's not an argument, it's an observation, and it's something we have to deal with.

I deal with it by not owning Apple products and online activism against their increasingly anti-consumer policies.

How do you deal with it?

So if an entirely new Netflix were to be created, with its own content and all, it shouldn't be allowed to be hosted on the Appstore..... because it isn't Netflix?

Sometimes I wonder how an industry that relies on logical thought ends up with folks who think the extreme opposite.

This isn't normal behavior for powerful organizations. Microsoft isn't stiffing me now, is it? Heck, even Google hasn't gone full retard. Would you like it if your car only allowed you to use gasoline from Shell and no other company, simply because Shell is "big"?

The difference is that a movie streaming app streams fixed content while game streaming essentially streams arbitrary apps, albeit limited to gaming in this situation. From Apple's perspective, this sort of precedent could lead to entire app ecosystems bypassing the app store via streaming. It would be a workaround to Apple's refusal to allow third party stores on iOS. The same risk doesn't apply to more constrained and static content like video, books, and music.

I feel its important to mention that the issue is not quite as clear cut as this, since we have interactive Netflix movies and an ecosystem of web-based apps via Safari, but this seems to be Apple's rationale.

Fair point. But the more likely explanation is simpler, Apple can do it with little risk of losing customers. Then they can justify it with flimsy arguments like 'quality control' if/when challenged.

Netflix has plenty of obscene and naughty content that Apple doesn't insist on policing.

Officially, the web is where things that aren't allowed in the app store are supposed to go. Anyway, can't you buy videos and games from the Amazon app?

I assume the difference (to Apple) is that movies generally don't have varied accounts and in-app purchases. You can't buy MTX to reskin the Avengers in Endgame (yet) or unlock extra DLC chapters (well Disney+ is trying I'm sure). You log into one provider (Netflix) instead of potentially an account/provider per game, plus the streaming app. So, money.

I disagree there are fundamental differences. The reason Apple is blocking game streaming apps is because games could contain content that violates the standards of the app store.

An easy violation is nudity, there is an app for Playboy, but there is zero nudity in it. However, I can get the full, uncensored Playboy magazine in the Nook app. I can watch movies with nudity in Netflix or Amazon Video. I can even buy or rent movies FROM APPLE with nudity in the iTunes store, like Eyes Wide Shut, Walk Hard, Boogie Nights (which is about porn!), and Barbarella, all right from my iPad or iPhone.

So why can I see nudity if I buy it directly from Apple in a movie, but not an app?

I can download the Twitch app and watch streams of video games, but I can't download an app to let me PLAY the very same games?

There is no difference, it is simply Apple capriciousness.

Didn't they effectively ban other browsers some time ago? Other browsers were effectively reduced to reskinned Safari on iOS for a while.

They still are.

How do apps like WeChat are allowed then? There are entire platforms and mini-programs inside.

Section 5.1.2(iii) of the App Store Review Guidelines has a special exception for Apps with a 1 billion install base from a country where the government doesn't give two hoots about your App Store Review Guidelines.

That's simply not true.

To the people saying it's obviously a joke: The App Store Review Guidelines have become huge and I wouldn't have been surprised to find something like this in there, although not in these exact words. Actually, I wish the App Store Review Guidelines WOULD state exceptions like the one mentioned. At least that would be transparent.

It's not a real guideline, they were making a joke. But it's true that Apple risks alienating their iOS user base there if they try to ban WeChat now.

Seems obvious that was a joke

The actual guideline made for WeChat is 4.7:

> Apps may contain or run code that is not embedded in the binary (e.g. HTML5-based games, bots, etc.), as long as code distribution isn’t the main purpose of the app, the code is not offered in a store or store-like interface, and provided that the software (1) is free or purchased using in-app purchase; (2) only uses capabilities available in a standard WebKit view (e.g. it must open and run natively in Safari without modifications or additional software); your app must use WebKit and JavaScript Core to run third-party software and should not attempt to extend or expose native platform APIs to third-party software; (3) is offered by developers that have joined the Apple Developer Program and signed the Apple Developer Program License Agreement; (4) does not provide access to real money gaming, lotteries, or charitable donations; (5) adheres to the terms of these App Review Guidelines (e.g. does not include objectionable content); and (6) does not offer digital goods or services for sale. Upon request, you must provide an index of software and metadata available in your app. It must include Apple Developer Program Team IDs for the providers of the software along with a URL which App Review can use to confirm that the software complies with the requirements above.

WeChat didn't start like that. Now they have the network effects to stay because Apple doesn't want to risk the backlash of the China market.

Presumably they feed Apple money by the billions.

they don't need to feed them anything. A phone in China without access to Wechat is metal junk. It's actually WeChat which has the dominant position on that front.

Apple seems to have modified the rules just enough so that apps like WeChat can operate,

From https://www.globaltimes.cn/content/1137321.shtml

> According to a statement the WeChat Team sent to the Global Times, the pulldown menu has been a function that WeChat always has and has always tried to optimize. > But the team stressed that the pulldown menu only provides WeChat users a convenient way to open the Mini Programs that they have used before. The menu does not recommend new Mini Programs to the users, neither does WeChat have a commercial model based on centralized traffic distribution like app stores.

Also changes to their Payment rules, https://www.theverge.com/2018/1/16/16896008/apple-wechat-tip...

Let’s face it. It has never been about fairness. Only profit maximization.

But I can play games from my browser. And I can play games that are available through the Facebook app.

Facebook or WeChat, Apple can't ban them. Game streaming, they can. Maybe they'll change the rule in 1, 2 or 5 years if game streaming becomes so big to move enough of their customers to Android. Then they'll claim they're introducing an incredible thing. Remember copy and paste on the iPhone 3 GS? https://www.idownloadblog.com/2009/07/17/iphone-3gs-stupid-t...

The can ban them. They don't want to. They could just as easy say "we'll remove the Facebook app until you remove the gaming part". Same for WeChat.

Of course Apple doesn't want to. Both them and Apple know that without WeChat Apple won't sell any iPhone in China and without Facebook no iPhone in the western world.

You cant even bring your own browser engine to iphone

Reply on news.ycombinator.com