Apple Privacy Chief: North Dakota Bill 'Threatens to Destroy the iPhone' | Hacker News Reader

Apple Privacy Chief: North Dakota Bill 'Threatens to Destroy the iPhone'

macrumors.com

13 pointsCharlesW14 comments

Am I the only one that doesn’t want to allow alternative app stores on iOS? I specially don’t want developers to be able to accept non Apple Pay payment methods and I don’t want app developers to circumvent the App Store. If I wanted a bunch of spammy apps with annoying checkout flows I would buy an android phone. But I didn’t because I find Android annoying for all the above reasons. To everyone saying there isn’t competion: hello Android! Go buy one and side load whatever you want. But leave iOS users alone :)

All Apple needs to do to appease people that want a more open app store is to drop the 30% royalty they take on every sale (or reduce it GREATLY) and allow in-app payments that do not go through their app store, OR allow side loading as a legitimate, supported way to install applications.

It's very simple. Apple claims that 30% is required to pay for the infrastructure they use to vet submitted applications. Anyone that has automated anything with software will have a strong clue that this claim is absolute rubbish.

All they have to do is stop being ultra-greedy about their royalties. That's literally it, and they won't. They won't relent.

So what's an alternative that a state law can enforce? Allow third party app stores.

Third party app stores are the less attractive option that can be enforced by laws, so that's what North Dakota is attempting to do here.

If third party app stores do exist for iOS one day, you won't be required to use them. They only need to be an option.

Please provide your detailed analysis of the cost of operating any maintaining software at scale to back up your arguments. Please site sources and make sure your data comes from enterprises at the same scale as Apple. You comment is a rant with no data.

I have run product teams as well as run production customer facing networks. It is never as simple as your comment says. While I can GUESS on 20+ years of experience in the space that Apple is likely making a nice profit on their cut, I in no way believe it “free”.

Also please tell me why a company is not allowed to profit on their work? Where is the bill to open the Google Play store, or the Samsung store, or the XYZ store for your TV apps?

I personally am very happy with the knowledge that in general the Apple Store is safe for my non-techie wife and kids. I cannot say the same thing for Google that my in-laws use, having been forced to remove the spam apps the Google store happily allowed them to install. Reviewing an application is not a 100% software / script driven function. Apple seems to set the bar on quality and trust for that. I am happy to pay to live in that system.

This is being driven by someone that is pissed at Apple because they could not deal with the terms required to provide an application in the Apple ecosystem.

I can sideload on any device you mentioned that isn't an apple device.

All Apple need to do is allow sideloading, just like everyone else does. Anyone and everyone can continue to use the app store all they want, but there must be a way around (sideloading) if apple want to avoid the threat of laws like this.

Stop being a blind fan for a few minutes and think. No one is suggesting that the app store go away. No one is saying that apple must give away access to the app store for free. All anyone with a valid complaint wants is a single viable way to load apps and accept payment without going through the app store. THAT'S IT. THAT'S LITERALLY THE ENTIRE ASK. It's not a lot to ask for given that literally every other consumer device you mentioned allows exactly that and has from the beginning.

Apple fans act like it's impossible to provide this or unreasonable to ask for it. Everyone else recognizes that this is a valid thing to allow your customers to do. Apple says "nah, screw the customer" and the apple fans just go "oh apple, you're so wise and sexy" and I simply don't get the lust some seem to have for that company.

Why does Apple have to allow this? Because you want it? You do not have to build in the Apple ecosystem. Android has 85% market share. Write for that if it makes you happy. If you want access to that other 15% of the market well then you have to play in their rules. If people where not happy with that then they would not be successful. The lack of side loading has not hurt Apple because most people just do not give a damn. Allowing side loading would NOT suddenly open a huge market because the average person that buys Apple would not use it. On the other hand requiring Apple to create a method to do this imposes on Apple all the development, testing and security issue that would be created by this “feature”, not to mention the public bad will of some dumb user that follows some random webpage and gets pawned and then blames Apple for allowing it. It is not magically free. It has a cost to Apple that they have to right to say no to. People have a choice of what phones they buy with 85% of the market being Android. I am sick of everyone complaining about this. You have a choice to of where to build and play. Just because you are a developer that does not want to pay Apple what the market will bare does not give you the right to tell them how to run their business.

The average Apple customer does not feel they are being screwed by Apple because they do not support side loading. If they did they would not buy the product. I am willing to bet the % of the install base or really people that side load on Android is insignificant vs the daily user base.

Oh I am not a blind fan. I am someone that has been in all the roles from support to development to product management. I have done this long enough that I think about the cost (money, man hours) for the simple thing that everyone seems to think is obvious until they pull it apart and understand the real details involved.

It's not about Apple versus Android. It's about letting software vendors and phone handset owners escape the apple tax, if they want to.

It is apples stranglehold over the handsets that individual people own that is the problem.

You have to pay to buy the phone, then you aren't even free to do what you want with it.

If you don't understand in your bones why that is bad, there is absolutely nothing anyone can say to change your mind. So, why are you taking time to be a part of a discussion when you have no intention of listening to the other side? I don't understand internet people...

The only thing people who complain about this want, is just a tiny bit of freedom to develop and install apps on their phone without the app store IF AND ONLY IF THEY WANT TO DO THAT SPECIFICALLY.

I really don't understand why apple or apple fans are against this. It hurts no one and it gives a tiny bit of freedom to that tiny number of people who want this additional freedom.

If anything, this would increase iphone market share.

You are the one not understanding. I understand that you feel allowing people to load their own software is important. You ignore the fact that allowing side loading is a feature that has to be developed, tested and supported. It forces the company to spend money and resources at the direction of a government body to add a product feature where no moral, health, safety or environmental hazard exists in not doing so. There is however a huge moral hazard in allowing the government to legislative a products feature set because they like it.

You can choose to vote your view buy not buying Apple because of this. If enough people agree with you and it hurts Apples market share then they as a company can choose to add the feature.

The government does not have the right to mandate side loading as a feature anymore then they have the right to tell you what color your background screen must be.

I understand that you feel Apple should support the installation of 3rd party software because you feel it’s the right way to do things. The point is your feeling about this has no impact on what you can legally force a company to do and it is that simple. You just do not agree because it is something you want. You are welcome to start a public campaign to change Apples mind. You are welcome to achieve enough wealth that you can take a board seat and force change. What you should not be allowed to do is pass some stupid law tell me or anyone what features to build in my product when there is no associated hazard in not doing so.

No, you're not understanding me.

Why doesn't apple WANT to do it? Why don't they WANT to do the right thing by their users? Why do they demand the right to lock-in everyone to the app store? Why must everyone who does business "in their neighborhood" have to bribe the local gangs to be allowed to continue to do business?

They want to do the wrong thing, and enforce a tax on everyone who chooses their platform. They need to be forced into doing the absolute bare minimum portion of the right thing. I don't even care if zero users ever take advantage of it. The option to avoid paying the mafia while selling stuff in that neighborhood needs to be there.

Also, the ability to install software on the device exists. There are layers on top of that which enforce how it is done, such as requiring that the software is signed by apple and delivered by the app store. Those additional layers are not required, and can be made optional. It won't require a huge development effort to enable what is being asked. Everyone else managed to do it easily.

It is the right thing in your mind because you want it. If the consumer agreed with you they could vote with the pockets not to buy Apple, but they don’t. The install base of Android users that root their device is also low. People do not want it. You and a small group of people want it. The market makes the rules here.

Also once again it is not a small effort to do what you want. Do you know what the current dev-test env looks like at Apple? Do you know what the code path is to turn on and off security? What do you do here? Implement a feature to allow the user to install unsigned software? Okay so you turn off the protections, does that disable the wall between apps? Is that okay? Is it okay to say well if you disable this the way the system is written all protections come down, so anything you install can read your keychain and all your passwords? How long will the EULA be when you want to press that button? What happens when someone does this scream to the media and the courts? Who is going to pay to write the code for this and the lawyers and the test team? You want to force a company to write code because it is something you want yet you are unwilling to admit that it is not free. Where does it stop, I mean I really want an iPhone that matches my car color. I guess I should get a law passed to force phone makers to support custom colors? I can get a phone that is not Apple to match my car color as everyone else has seem to do it, so why not force Apple? It’s easy right? The truth is that it is not simple, it never is. It is never just a matter of a little software.

The fact is there is no legal or moral reason for the government to be involved in this market based decision. The market here is not a monopoly, there are other players and the consumer has a choice. Just because you have an issue with it does not make it meet the legal requirement for the government to become involved. Your outrage on this issue is a false premise that fails the test of harm to the consumer.

You are welcome to use another companies product that supports the feature that you want.

Also less you think I am being paranoid have a look at this.

https://www.theregister.com/2020/12/10/south_korea_activex_c...

How would you like to be required to use ActiveX on IE6 in 2017 for banking? The government mandated this control back in 1999 and everyone had to use it. They only killed it in 2020.

Funny thing about software is it costs money to produce and maintain. Another funny thing, is it runs on hardware which also isn’t free to buy or maintain. At Apple scale, that means for every new app or update, they need to compile it, scan it, pass it off for checks and then distribute it globally. That will be done many many many times a second. On top of that they have to maintain a payment system that I’ve not once seen go down or had a problem with. Then they need to handle fraud, payment refund requests through support etc.

All I’m getting at, is it’s naive to boil what they do for that 30% down to “they automate some software”.

If you think it costs 30% of every sale to provide that service, then I disagree with that, strongly.

3%, MAYBE. Maximum.

See my reply to your sibling comment for a more detailed explanation of my perspective, if you wish. Makes no sense to repeat it here.

Your same argument can be applied against you: Allowing other distribution channels doesn't mean you'd have to use them. You can continue to only buy apps from Apple's app store.

If Facebook then decides to only sell on their app store - go use another social network. If Epic does the same - go play different games. Same with your bank, your supermarket and your taxi service - you get to decide who you do business with... unless you're an app developer. In that case you only have one choice: Ignore half your potential customers or follow Apple's shitty rules to the letter and still risk them kicking you out on a whim.

Apple owns roughly 50% of the US phone users. That's too much market power to ignore. They're going to be forced into opening up eventually.

All I want is for Apple to play fair.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com