Hacker News Reader

Comment by aboringusername | Hacker News Reader

Epic demands Apple do thing = bad for Apple (good for Epic) no way

Apple demand Facebook do thing = Good for Apple (bad for FB) yes way

So Apple is allowed to get its own way, 100% of the time, no questions asked, what they want is what they get end of (by virtue of holding all the cards and owning the platform they dictate the rules on)

How about no? You can play by your rules in your sandbox, but Epic has a right to demand it's allowed a sandbox in the same park, maybe Apple will be forced to change its business if everyone starts playing in Epic's sandbox and consumers decide Apple's policies are rubbish?

That's the very definition of "competition" something Apple has avoided for over a decade at this point (as far as iOS inter-competition goes)

View on HN

> Epic demands Apple do thing = bad for Apple (good for Epic) no way

Epic demands Apple do a thing = bad for Apple, bad for customers (good for Epic)

> Apple demand Facebook do thing = Good for Apple (bad for FB) yes way

Apple demands Facebook do a thing = Good for Apple, good for customers (bad for Facebook)

As a customer in these equations, I'm siding with Apple.

> That's the very definition of "competition" something Apple has avoided for over a decade at this point

Why do I have to use Epic's game store for Fortnite? Why can't I create my own skins with paint and sell them for whatever I want?

>Epic demands Apple do a thing = bad for Apple, bad for customers (good for Epic)

not bad for all customers. I would like to side-load third party apps on my Iphone. Remember when app store banned a hn reader app because it showed Covid-related submissions[1]

[1]https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24410652

Idk about you but I’ve been sideloading apps for years on my iPhone. There’s an entire subreddit for it if you’re really that interested.

> Epic demands Apple do a thing = bad for Apple, bad for customers (good for Epic)

How is allowing developers to use alternate payment platforms "bad for customers"? Or, if not on the phone, at least to allow them to add funds to their account from the browser/another platform and use it in their iOS app?

So Apple allows Epic to put their store on iOS, but of course has to allow anyone to put their Store on iOS since otherwise it wouldn't be competitive. What about when Facebook makes Facebook its own marketplace, and the apps it distributes bypass the IDFA and track users without the popup, and of course don't have a privacy nutrition label? What about the hundreds of other $adtech companies bootstrapping their privacy-invasive, scam, and malicious apps (think 'your phone has a virus, call apple support' scams), is that not bad for the consumer?

Surely we can just apply the Windows argument of "well they should get antivirus software and stop browsing shady sites" and go about our day having improved the landscape for the tech-literate, while having increased the risk other people take on by using their phone if they don't know the first thing about ensuring the apps they download are safe or privacy-preserving. That's why people buy iPhone - you literally do not have to worry about malicious App Store apps.

> How is allowing developers to use alternate payment platforms "bad for customers"?

Because those "alternate payment platforms" don't prioritise consumer protection.

Deliveroo did an update their software that wiped out my login settings. They didn't support apple login, so I lost access to my account. They won't recover my email because of a special character in it, and so they continued to charge me for their "plus" service every month, and avoided any emails I tried to send asking to stop (asking me to "log in" to change my payment settings!).

Requiring apps use Apple's channel would have protected me from that experience.

How is Epic fighting to reduce Apple's cut of app store proceeds (30%!) bad for customers? At worst it's customer-neutral, at best it could reduce prices.

if you dislike uPlay and Origin, you should probably side with Apple on this.

I dislike uPlay and Origin and that's why I'm avoiding them (I still have some games on them but something has to be veeery interesting for me to buy it there - I'm even willing to pay more to get same thing on Steam).

Why are we all talking about creating more stores? Shouldn't we opt into creating systems API for stores? That way you could choose store application and have products from all repositories (stores) available in there.

On most Linuxes you add repository and it doesn't matter if you use official package manager, graphical one, or some unofficial bash script. You are able to install same software.

>if you dislike uPlay and Origin, you should probably side with Apple on this.

Can you provide some reasoning behind that. What should I like, so I can dislike uPlay in the first place?

Most people seem to be on board with Steam being their preferred distributor. Any alternatives are met with harsh vitriol- especially ones that are for distributing a a single companies property specifically. Such as EAs origin and Ubisoft’s uPlay (now called Ubisoft Connect).

This is common in the gaming community. Full disclosure: I used to work in the studio that developed and maintained uplay.

One of the games I worked on was an epic store exclusive (or, wouldn’t launch on steam) and it was met with harsh criticism for that. Many players outright said that they wouldn’t buy the game if it wasn’t on steam.

Judging by PC sales, they held true to their word.

I have steam and I absolutely do not need a single provider/distributor (in fact I also have GOG and uPlay, and in no shape steam would be held in any higher esteem). I don't quite see any reason to dislike/resent any other company's way of releasing their products.

Back, years ago the distribution way were tons of 3.5" diskettes, or better yet - transportable hard disk with a jumper switch to slave mode. A lot has changed since, however subscribing to the model that one company has to govern my entertainment model is beyond silly.

The ability to purchase a game on iPhone then use it on an Android next because I decided to change phones is invaluable for customers.

This is something I'm pretty sure Epic would provide with their own app store.

How being locked in apple's ecosystem good for the customers.

What if consumers like it like that: one sandbox curated by Apple?

Then they continue to use the Apple App store.

That may not be an option if work-necessary or social-connection-necessary software moves to an alternate store to enjoy less restrictions.

At the point where your device has work software on it all bets are off to begin with. Your employer might straight up require you to use an Android phone. What you're describing is your employer using their free choice to decide where to distribute apps.

Incidentally, employers already have the ability to distribute custom iOS software for their employees, so your scenario wouldn't happen.

Work-necessary software probably involved an enterprise provisioning profile, which for all intents and purposes, gives the holder of the profile full rights to your phone.

As for social, why isn't this happening on Android if it's so inevitable?

Those consumers should have every right to stay in that sandbox. And the rest of us should have the right to use a different one.

You do have that right, it’s called Android.

You only have that right in advance, though. If I get an iPhone and buy a bunch of software on it and then 3 years later Apple Changes The Terms Of Our Relationship, I don't have any ability to migrate my data (let alone my purchases) to another platform. Not only do I have to buy a new smartphone, I have to re-buy my apps even if those apps are available on Android. Even if the app's developer wants to give me the app for free on other platforms, they can't, because Apple refuses to give developers any information on their customers. This came up previously when some OS X software had to leave the Mac App Store. Likewise any music or videos I bought on iTunes won't migrate over to my Android phone - in the era of physical media this wasn't a problem, you could pop your CD or DVD into any player you want so you had true freedom.

Windows and Mac and Linux environments are not sandboxed like this either. All my data is files in folders, and I can export it as I like to another machine.

This is a problem with any store, though, except for some very specific situations. You won’t solve that problem by having more isolated islands. I agree that this should be improved, I have no illusion that Facebook and Epic have any intention of doing that.

You solve it by allowing sideloading (which necessarily means isolated islands can be created too, but that is not the point)

Freedom of choice implies that you do have to make choices though. If I buy a Ford, and later decide that a Chevy is what I want, I don't complain...I sell the Ford.

If I have a windows computer, and I buy a mac, I can't run all my windows software. The developers of that software may not even make mac equivalents.

The idea that choices need to be ultimately convenient and consequence free is just not realistic. Depreciation, transaction costs, and functional differences between products are a consumer's problem to manage.

I agree with you on media files, but, I also know that there are plenty of workarounds to exporting iTunes specific media formats if you would rather leave iTunes behind.

If you buy a child seat whatever into your car you are right to assume that it will work on the Chevy as well..

Do you think it would be unfair to the users who bought an iPhone 3 years back considering sandboxed appstore as one of the main reason to buy it?

Cool, how do I install it on my iPhone? The one I bought with my money?

The same way I install iOS on my Android phone I bought with my money.

Visit https://projectsandcastle.org/ and follow the instructions, assuming your hardware meets the current requirements.

I believe consumer choice is essential to making markets efficient. I think more of it is better. For example I also think we should have a right to repair, so companies are forced to give me a choice to repair instead of throwing away and buying anew. Sure, you could say I could just vote with my wallet and not do business with any company that does not prioritize repairability. But in reality that doesn't work because the vast majority of companies don't do that because it's in their interest that I need to buy a new thing every couple of years. So I need a right to repair law to give me, as a consumer, some reasonable choices that it's not in the companies' own interest to give me.

Exactly the same thing goes for what I do with the devices I buy, and what software I install on them. It's not in Apple's interest that I have a choice of what source of apps I use - but giving me as a consumer that choice would expand the market (e.g. by making it possible to sell an app-based service with a 20% profit margin - currently if you tried to make one, you'd lose 10% on every sale). So yes, consumers currently have a choice of which side of the duopoly they want to live on. I believe more choice would be better, both for consumers and for the ecosystem as a whole.

What I am very afraid of is a situation in which every developer pushes its own App Store with dodgy security and privacy.

“Oh, you want Photoshop? Just add the Adobe store (don’t look at permissions, also please give us your debit card number, we promise it’ll be safe)”.

“Oh, you want that nifty game? Just install our store. And also give us your bank account.”

“Yes, Apple is draconian. So to get the Facebook app, you must give us complete access to your phone and all data you send. Sign with your blood here.”

From an opsec perspective, Apple’s store associated with a prepaid debit card is great. They are far from ideal, but they have amongst the best privacy practices in the industry, have great customer support, and their interests align with mine better than those of their competitors.

We know that the second third party stores are allowed, some developer will force them on us.

Android having one or two external app stores of any note with the vast majority of users hanging out on the Play store tells me that this doomsday scenario is unlikely.

> What if consumers like it like that: one sandbox curated by Apple?

if they like it, they can keep using it.

EDIT: apparently suggesting people to keep using something they like deserves downvotes :)

There are alternative stores on android but no one forces you to use them. The same will apply to iPhone

Reply on news.ycombinator.com