Hacker News Reader

Comment by geenew | Hacker News Reader

It's hard to argue with the claim - if you have an iOS phone or tablet, for example, it is a monopoly, since it's the only place you can buy a program for your computer.

The walled garden has real benefits in security and privacy, but seems to require centralized control, and comes at the expense of user freedom.

A solution to the monopoly pricing problem could be to treat app store controllers (currently A & G) to the same type of control that credit card issuers are subject to, and place a limit on the rates they can charge.

A solution to the security vs freedom question could be to require that users have the option to opt out of app store controls for installing programs.

View on HN

I don't even buy the "security" argument; MacOS is a highly secure operating system, produced by the same company, which has no forced walled-garden App Store. There certainly are exploits and scams which happen; just like on iOS. The argument sounds great in theory, but in practice, it simply doesn't hold water; security & privacy can (and should) (and does) happen at the OS layer, not application distribution.

macOS is definitely less secure than iOS.

What's your definition of "secure" here?

Same as everyone else's, I'd expect – less possibility (higher difficulty for attackers) of viruses / data exfiltration / etc.

How is that less possible? Did grandparent do a diff between the iOS and MacOS CVE list or is it a hunch based on which platform is more locked down?

This is architecturally speaking – specifically, more wholistic sandboxing.

You literally can't do a whole host of things on an iOS device without first jailbreaking it. Things which you can do on macOS by default.

Apple has added some limitations to macOS that do similar in the past few years (namely expanding the oversight of "Gatekeeper"), but it is still allows far more behaviors than an iOS device does.

A system with a smaller attack surface (made by the same company with fairly consistent engineering practices) is more secure. That is the assumption I am making here.

If it's less secure, why are they selling it? They claim their policies are to protect consumers. But then they keep launching new Macs with less secure operating systems for general purpose use. Isn't it hypocritical? iOS apps are themselves made using this "less secure" operating system. Won't someone hack your Mac and add malicious code inside your iOS apps? /sarcasm

Yes, given the number of articles posted on hacker news that detail apps which circumvent protections on Apple... That's a bold claim

But I don't think it's very controversial to argue that iOS is more secure than MacOS (to the point of inconvenience), and that this is a reason why integration with the health data on the iPhone will pose a challenge.

The iPhone is also much higher stakes than MacOS in terms of total number of users affected by any exploit.

For this to be true, Apple would have had to remove no scams. Not just let a few through.

There are plenty of competing walled gardens on PC that sell video games. They seem to do fine.

Apple doesn't even manage to protect its customers all that well with $64B in revenue: https://www.theverge.com/2021/2/8/22272849/apple-app-store-s...

The App Store’s function is very similar to HR’s. It protects Apple, and other benefits are ancillary.

If I build a shopping center that gets tons of foot traffic, pay to build the amenities and security, and then charge stores rent, it doesn't suddenly become a monopoly when the tenants feel that the rent is too high.

It does when you literally can’t operate your store in another mall.

I also don’t think this analogy scales very well since many stores operate both in and out of closed shopping centers. Including Apple’s stores.

> It does when you literally can’t operate your store in another mall.

Android exists

> I also don’t think this analogy scales very well since many stores operate both in and out of closed shopping centers. Including Apple’s stores.

How is the scalability of the analogy relevant?

> Android exists

So I see this as 2-sides of the same coin. From the developer's perspective, they can choose which platforms to develop. As a consumer, if you have chosen iDevice, then you can only purchase from the one single store. However, you did make that decision on your own. Corp making you use iDevice, then why are you loading apps onto it that the company did not provide you in the first place?

>Android exists

So another Mall also charges 30%.

Do I have a third mall to choose from? Or can I set up a third mall ? What is the market entry barrier for a third mall ? Are these Mall a necessity in the community?

I wish people would stop using over simplified analogy.

I’m a consumer. I have many, many apps installed on my iPhone, and for the pretty much all of them I’ve paid $0.

Your issue exists only with paid apps. Apple is providing you the infrastructure and means to distribute your software. It makes sense to me that they get a cut.

And it also makes sense to me that you have to go through them. I specifically bought an iPhone because Apple seems to actively regulate what apps are allowed in the App Store while favoring customer privacy and security.

It’s interesting to me that your arguments against Apple are the specific reasons I chose an Apple device.

>I specifically bought an iPhone because Apple seems to actively regulate what apps are allowed in the App Store while favoring customer privacy and security.

That is perfectly acceptable. Except when they ban it for competitive advantage. Which is the whole point of the discussion. And Apple even wrote it in their email as such.

For better or worse, yes other malls exist.

Firstly, there's the web. Secondly, Android allows you to create alternative app stores and install them, or install apps entirely outside app stores. Thirdly, there were and still are competitors to both Android and ios, the fact that they suck and nobody uses them is not Apple or Google's fault. Finally, many people live in places where there are only one or two large malls.

Sure, and Keurig has a monopoly on coffee if you own a Keurig machine and don't buy from Starbucks. While these corporate actions *are* anti-consumer, they do not generally fall in line with the standard definition of a monopoly, which includes looking at the the whole market, not just a sub-section of it. E.g. my local golf course also has a monopoly on golf balls while I'm in their pro-shop.

Make up a new word and fine them all the same. If you engage in anti consumer practices then I, a consumer, highly endorse anti corporate legislation.

TBH this is reasonable. I'm not on the side of Apple, but the monopoly claim is ridiculous to me.

Creating new law IMO, indeed is the way to go.

Fining them for things they do now before such law exists, however, should not be pursued. Ex post acte law is forbidden in large parts of the world for good reason.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ex_post_facto_law:

Ex post facto criminalization is also prohibited by Article 7 of the European Convention on Human Rights, Article 15(1) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and Article 9 of the American Convention on Human Rights. While American jurisdictions generally prohibit ex post facto laws, European countries apply the principle of lex mitior ("the milder law"). It provides that, if the law has changed after an offense was committed, the version of the law that applies is the one that is more advantageous for the accused. This means that ex post facto laws apply in European jurisdictions to the extent that they are the milder law.

Do human rights apply to corporations? E.g. in my country, Belgium, There is a difference between a law person vs natural person. I had assumed only a natural person can claim human rights, but I might be wrong here.

Isn't the whole issue the definition of the market? That's going to be highly subjective. Are Samsung and Google phones running Android the same market? Most people would say yes. Are phones and tablets, or computing devices in general the same market? Most people would say no. iOS and Android? It gets murky, the cost of switching is high and fungibility is debatable.

Are they anti-consumer? Many people seem to disagree.

I want a Linux based phone with the performance of an iPhone and a decentralized App Store with an auditable chain of trust.

I also want an information appliance that is trivial to use and completely managed by a third party I trust.

Why can’t I have both?

They definitely are anti-consumer and nobody who actually looked into the topic would disagree. Apple has a monopoly on software distribution on their mobile devices and they force companies to use their IAP api which comes with a heavy fine, which leads to developers (rightfully) increasing the prices. The same goes for Google, the only argument that could be made in the benefit for Google is that it is possible to install Apps from other sources.

Apple is the gatekeeper for anything that gets on their mobile devices (they can't really be considered yours). Apple and the review process are the ones who decide what is a useful tool and what not, what could be considered harmful to their customers etc. This way their consumers missing out at a lot.

Many die hard Apple fans would argue with the perceived sense of security, but recent events perfectly demonstrate that even the most strict gatekeeper, the review process, is insufficient to provide security to unknown users. The best thing companies can do to enhance their users security is to educate them.

The software is not the only position where Apple shows monopolistic and anti-consumer behavior, their hardware repair is another great example but not the topic

> They definitely are anti-consumer and nobody who actually looked into the topic would disagree.

This renders the rest of the comment meaningless in the context of a platform intended for curiousity and debate, so I didn’t read past it.

> the only argument that could be made in the benefit for Google is that it is possible to install Apps from other sources.

That's already a pretty big difference by itself, but in addition to that the Play Store is much more permissive about use of third party payment providers. So e.g. Apple can (and does) sell Apple Music subscriptions on Android without a 30% tax. The converse is not possible.

Starbucks makes licensed K-Cups:

https://athome.starbucks.com/coffees-by-format/k-cup-pods

Keurig doesn't have a monopoly on anything except licensing their name. Unlicensed third-party compatible cups are readily available. Keurig machines are more Windows/macOS than Android/iOS.

https://www.gourmesso.com/collections/all-keurig-blends

https://shoponline.melitta.com/pages/javajig

etc.

I'm holding out for a PINE64 PineBrew FOSS coffee maker myself.

AltStore allows you to run any app you want on your iPhone without a jailbreak. How does the App Store have a monopoly when there are literally alternatives too it. This ignores Cydia and the other app stores that require you to jailbreak your phone.

Apple has no more of a monopoly on iOS app sales then Google has on android apps, Microsoft has on the Xbox store, Sony has on the Sony store, or Nintendo has on the Nintendo store.

Can't find AltStore on the appstore and can't even bundle my apps for usage outside of the app store any more (I honestly tried for three hours last year. maybe the stack overflow was outdated)

The fact you couldn’t find AltStore on the App Store just proves the point more. The app doesn’t have to be in the app store to be installable on the phone.

https://twitter.com/saurik/status/1337094724813918208

https://altstore.io/faq/

Not exactly "first class" is it?

"I followed the instructions, why is AltStore still not installing for me?" > This could happen for a number of reasons

"AltStore freezes/takes forever to sign-in." > This could happen for a number of reasons

"AltStore says “Could not find AltServer” when trying to refresh." > This means AltStore could not discover a running AltServer on the same WiFi network

So you have to run your own local server? And it's janky as all get-out? This basically proves the point. If your app isn't on the app store, for 99.999% of users it doesn't exist; they will not be able to install it.

At least on Android you can hand them an .apk and they can trivially install it.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com