Hacker News Reader

> Why is it fair for apple to arbitrarily prevent the installation of any competing distribution methods?

Same reason it is fair for Nintendo to not allow Sony to sell Switch games, and Sony not to allow Nintendo to sell PlayStation games.

Their circus, their monkeys.

> Apple has said "Nice store you've spent all that money building, such a shame we've decided we won't allow you to use it on an iPhone."

Epic also can't put the Epic Store on Switch or PlayStation. Strange how there's no hand-wringing about that.

A Nintendo Switch or PlayStation is not the modern equivalent of a PC for much of the population.

If you ignore all context, then yes, an iPhone is exactly the same as a games console.

> it is fair

Is it fair? To the companies or the consumers? These are all huge multinational companies, regulation should err on the side of the end users - not Epic either.

> Their circus, their monkeys.

Your choice of words is perhaps an argument for freedom given how the life a circus monkey is.

So what exactly does Epic want here? To force Apple to sell iOS (with configurable/multiple stores) as separate software that you might install on a separately iOS-less bought iPhone? To force Apple to sell iOS-less/unlocked iPhones?

This lawsuit is like saying that Google should be forced to allow for other browser than Chrome to be used on Chromebook devices. The whole device is a tightly integrated top to bottom solution and when you buy the device you buy the entire solution, not pieces of it. It's not an open system where you buy separate hardware/software components and some of those components aren't playing fair with the others or something.

> This lawsuit is like saying that Google should be forced to allow for other browser than Chrome to be used on Chromebook devices.

Well, yes - obviously, no? If a tech company wants to build a completely closed ecosystem they can fuck off - that includes Epic games. Epic is doing this for their pockets, but the freedom of the end user is only going to continue to be eroded as more and more software moves into the cloud. This isn't like GDPR, the marginal cost to Apple to add a sane way to load what you want on hardware you bought is almost nil.

It would be unreasonable to make Apple sell phones without an operating system, it would not, however, be unreasonable to force them to allow users to have the privilege of even running their own apps at their own risk.

It might not seem fair as a developer, but as an iPhone user, I don't have any problem with all my apps coming from one trusted store. Just compare it to Windows. Apps can still be downloaded in several inconsistent ways, and it's hard to trust applications you download arbitrarily.

So continue to use the Apple store and you have no problems.

App not on the Apple store? Don't use the app. So simple.

---

I bet your first response to that statement isn't positive - Now reflect that this is exactly what Apple is saying to developers. "Don't want to use our store? Don't release on iOS."

Because right now, if you use an application on iOS, you are not a customer of that application. You are an Apple customer who happens to use a product resold by Apple.

Now - I have no problem with you preferring that arrangement, and I'm certainly not suggesting removing the Apple app store. I'm just saying it feels a tad like bullshit. Maybe entirely like bullshit. Actually - Nope, it's just bullshit.

My gut reaction to "app not on Apple store" is -- that's life, isn't it? Not every program is available on every store. I can't get Halo on my PlayStation. I can't get certain video editing tools on my PC. I can't get certain productivity software on my Mac.

Disjointed app stores are annoying at worst, but I don't really see why there's any legal problem with that.

Legally, we're clearly still in a grey area for this.

Ethically... I find it fairly immoral to intentionally prohibit users who have bought your product from using it in ways you don't like. Courts also tend to look poorly on this, but there's a narrow path to walk between enforcing interoperability and allowing innovation.

I guess I'd say the concepts "sale" and "ownership" are at stake here. If I buy something, I expect to be able to extend/modify/repair/dismantle that device in any way I choose. I OWN it.

In the physical world, it's nearly impossible to put some sort of non-electronic lock on a device that would prevent the user from doing just that. There's no reasonable way to make a cup that could only hold Sprite.

So that status quo up until the last 70 years or so has been "buy means buy" and you own the thing.

Now we have products with incredibly complicated digital locks, though.

It turns out you can prevent users from putting something other than sprite in their cups with a complicated enough digital enforcement mechanism. The question is "should you be allowed to?".

And that's actually a hard question - The answer depends a lot on how many people need to interoperate with you and your products (your marketshare and possible monopoly status), as well as whether you have a genuine benefit you're providing your consumer by limiting that cup to just Sprite.

So legally speaking, Keurig just settled a case about this exact issue (they're out 31 million, btw). This is not nearly as "problem free" as you so clearly want it to be.

I do think there’s a bit of absurdity to this, though. I have a smart fridge. Is LG unethical for not letting me run Android apps on the little LCD? I have a right to that, don’t I?

The answer seems to become, I own the fridge, I can change it how I want, it I can figure out how, I can put whatever software I want on it.

Same with an iPhone—it’s my device, I can use it as a paperweight if I want, if I want, I can run Doom directly on it if I can figure out how.

Not sure why LG or Apple have an obligation to make sure their devices can run arbitrary programs.

I think the question here is whether the arbitrary restrictions dissuade you from performing the primary function of the device. For the fridge, not having android apps does not stop your using it as a fridge, which was what it was made for. For the iPhone, not letting apps run without going through the Appstore is a direct hindrance to the function of a smartphone, which is to run apps.

The value of iOS devices being entirely Apple controlled is precisely because it enables Apple to bully developers into behaving. Alternative stores aren’t about user choice; software is in most cases non-fungible. If I need OneNote there is one company that sells it and I must go to a store where it’s offered. Today if Microsoft doesn’t want to follow Apple’s rules they can pound sand and lose out on the whole iOS market. Tomorrow they will just go to another store and user has gained zero choice.

Like it sucks that it takes a trillion dollar company and total control of the platform to get developers to sorta kinda not mistreat their users but the “the individual right to not use bad apps” has done exactly nothing.

Except on Windows, you can establish that trust level with stores as you go along, instead of having just one store.

For example, I trust Steam, GOG, Epic's store (though I don't use Epic's because I don't want to fragment my library), and a whole assortment of developers specifically.

Also, it's not 2007 anymore, if you trust a developer you can almost always guarantee the app came from the trusted source through code signing. Almost everything is code-signed nowadays. If it isn't, Windows lets you know about it. If it's also not a popular app, the platform actively alerts you about it. VirusTotal and other reputation services also help you make an informed decision on whether an app is trustworthy or not.

I think you're missing the point.

There is no problem with multiple stores existing as a model. In fact, on android you can have that. If you like multiple stores, and you want the hassle of using reputation services to manage which things you trust, that's fine. Nobody is saying that you can't.

But by going against Apple's store as part of the platform model, you want to stop people from having a simpler option.

They are deciding that simpler option when they buy into the platform. My mum HATES PCs but loves her iPad because she doesn't have to deal with antivirus updates or downloading dodgy software. She doesn't have to understand multiple stores.

With a multi store model, there is an incentive for competition on store pricing. How do you compete on pricing alone with other stores? You reduce the quality of your review process. It's the only way to compete on cost. And that's what forcing multiple stores does.