Hacker News Reader

> But it’s not clear to me what the alternative is and maybe that’s why they will last.

We already know what the alternative is, in fact that was what we had for a long time: App Store + freedom to install/execute third party apps. Just like how all three desktop OSes always did, just like how Apple's own MacOS does it, and it's doing just fine.

Nobody cares about what Microsoft Store does or how Steam curates, because there are options. If Apple would unlock these pocket computers that we still call "phones" out of habit, this category of issues would largely go away.

> Lastly, a bunch of different app stores is a terrible user experience. Just look at the friction of finding which streaming service has a particular movie or TV show.

I can't follow this argument. Would you rather have SamsungTV to come pre-installed and be the only option for your TV? or LG to carefully curate what you can and can't watch on your own TV, and take a major cut of sales so your subscription is now %30 more expensive?

As a consumer I'm happy with competition and options.

> If Apple would unlock these pocket computers that we still call "phones" out of habit, this category of issues would largely go away.

I think the fact that Microsoft didn't do this with Windows and therefore allowed the entire computer revolution to go forward is lost on many people.

There are so many ideas that are killed in their crib because 30% is too much to give away when you're a startup.

On Android I basically stopped using many official play store apps and instead went open source. Ungoogled chromium for example allows desktop extensions and I'm currently typing this comment with ublock origin on mobile working perfectly just like on desktop.

I don't understand how a self proclaimed techie can cede control to that level and not be able to install programs without big brother Apple's blessing.

I was lurking for years here and i just registered to ask you where do i find the ungoogled chrome that allows extensions on android? The official ungoogled version does not support extensions. Do you mean Kiwi?

https://git.droidware.info/wchen342/ungoogled-chromium-andro...

You'll need to manually install an extension to allow installing from the official chrome extension website.

>We already know what the alternative is, in fact that was what we had for a long time: App Store + freedom to install/execute third party apps. Just like how all three desktop OSes always did, just like how Apple's own MacOS does it, and it's doing just fine.

Also today on HN: https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2021/05/apple-brass-discusse...

>XcodeGhost billed itself as faster to download in China, compared with Xcode available from Apple. For developers to have run the counterfeit version, they would have had to click through a warning delivered by Gatekeeper, the macOS security feature that requires apps to be digitally signed by a known developer.

Developers (should be) in the top half of user sophistication and they download a counterfeit version of XCode and ignore warnings about an unsigned app and install it anyway causing a breach affecting 128 million iOS users. Imagine what Aunt Ethel will be able to accomplish with CuteKittyAppStore.kp

Both developers and Aunt Ethel's of the world have been able to install anything they wanted on all three PC platforms since their inception, yet the world keeps spinning.

Locking people out of choices to protect some supposed interest is paternalistic, especially considering Apple already has a horse in the race (its fat %30 cut) and has almost no incentive to consider what is right for the consumer. If you don't want the government have a say on content you consume (like, Apple and porn/erotica), decisions you make and products you buy, why would you let Apple do those things?

Either way, simple act of allowing users to unlock their devices does not immediately mean Aunt Ethel would care to do that. In another topic here it was recently discussed that a large potion of users likely don't even open Settings app, and even the most enthusiastic aunts will likely be happy with a few trustworthy stores like, say Steam and Kindle, and that'd be all.

btw,

> ignore warnings about an unsigned app and install it anyway

that sounds like a policy/enforcement failure to me.

Notice how the supposedly "quality controlled" App Store walled garden totally and utterly failed to protect its users from XcodeGhost infected apps.

You claim that OSX App Store is doing just fine, but where are you getting your numbers?

I claim OS X/Mac (from a consumer's perspective) is doing just fine, or at least it's not doing any worse because it allows apps outside of App Store.

To me, the simplest route is to allow sideloading with big nasty disclaimers.

That neuters almost all App Store related complaints-- about fees, about curation mistakes, about impermissible content types, about the cost of admission for a hobbyist publishing a free app. "Just tell users to side load" is enough to make the affected developers whole.

They must be dead terrified of sideloading that it doesn't even seem to be in the discussion. I'm curious whether it's actually a fear that major revenue streams will bypass the 30% cut (doesn't seem to be too much of a problem for Google Play), or if they're afraid of losing control over their curated ecosystem and it ending up looking more like the MacOS level of flexibility?

Except Epic was not happy with this which is why they also challenged Google and were kick from the Play Store at the start of all this. [EDIT] Actually in the court filings they stated they was OS level access to the device with no warning or approval process from Apple.

They challenged Google for a multitude of reasons, one of which being that Google stepped in and forced manufacturers to cancel deals that epic had made to get the EGS launcher pre-installed on phones.

[1] https://www.theverge.com/2020/8/13/21368395/fortnite-epic-ga...

> Fourth, at the risk of offending HN folks who self-servingly believe everyone wants or needs side-loading apps, most people benefit from the filtering of apps. Side-loading and unrestricted third party payments would simply be another attack vector.

Yes, but those people can still stick with the App Store. That's not a good reason to take that freedom away from others.

I can see the argument here that if there are other app stores, some apps that these users would want would then be exclusive to these app stores, much like Epic does on PC, so they may be forced into using them anyway.

Compared to the current option where I have an emulator app on Android (or whichever other app you can think of) which isn't on IOS at all, only because Apple chooses to not allow most apps.

Maybe others think differently, but the friction to purchase a new phone and adapt to a new ecosystem is more onerous than downloading yet another app.

If Apple provided a blessed way to install Cydia[1] without jailbreaking, I would be a customer again in no time.

[1]: https://cydia.saurik.com/

That would never happen for as long as you can add custom repos which might contain piracy, and I don't think Saurik would be thrilled to outright prevent the addition of certain apt repos (there's already a piracy notice).

But this was never a feature (aka freedom) you were offered when you purchased the system.

Yes yes, we know that, I'm not sayign someone took it away, I'm not an idiot. I'm saying it's a bad reason to take it away, period, whether I bought the system or not.

//filtering of apps//

IMO one of the biggest stories about tech in 2021 is how easy it was to uncover multimillion dollar scams on the Apple App Store:

https://www.theverge.com/2021/4/21/22385859/apple-app-store-...

https://www.theverge.com/2021/2/8/22272849/apple-app-store-s...

This is like saying “we shouldn’t have a police and justice system because despite all the money we spend on it my bike was still nicked.”

There are reportedly ~4.4 million apps on the Apple App Store[0]; if 0.01% of those are scams, that’s still ~440. How many do you expect to find? And how many false reports do you expect Apple to receive from scammers, trying to take down the legitimate apps they compete with?

Yes, there does seem to be something wrong with the rating system they use, based on what is said in that article. Yes, Apple should take down an entire developer account for scanning not just an app.

The counterpoint is, successfully taking them down requires more than just that, because just that is an arms race between the scanners and those hunting the scammers.

[0] https://www.statista.com/statistics/268251/number-of-apps-in...

> rewards high volume publishers

Am I the only one that finds this backwards? I've always though it should be a "progressive tax" (for lack of a better term)...

game companies that make under, say, $1mil a year shouldn't pay 30% and watch larger companies making 100m+ a year pay 10% (or whatever sweetheart deal).

My other problem is FORCING the use of payment systems... if Apple provides a system? fine... but not letting companies use alternatives is assinine and my large honest complaint. No reason Netflix, Epic or other companies should be forced to pay Apple when they can host their own infrastructure. (same for google/steam/etc)

One reason (one I find valid) is user experience. Digital Purchases made on iOS are extremely easy to deal with since they are all dealt through Apple. Especially the way subscriptions are done. It’s consistent and I always know where to go for refunds in the event that’s needed. I would also prefer not giving every company payment information if I can help it.

That's fine and dandy... but I've never had an issue with payment processors in Netflix or other subscription services I use. It's nice having it one place but why should Netflix pay 30% to someone who signs up on Apple and then switches to Android? or never uses Netflix on the iPhone other than to signup for the service?

I'm picking on Netflix but the point stands - many companies are able to stand up payment processes. It's not a hard problem and it's not uncommon for companies to have them.

"because apple" isn't a reason to tax a company 30% for things like Netflix that are only tangentally iPhone or when a company can provide a standard level of payment processing.

Apples payment processing isnt THAT good. Definitely not 30% good.

And it is perfectly fine to require any app available on the Apple App Store to offer Apple Payments as the default option. Anyone who wants to stick to Apple payments should be able to do so.

It is not ok to block any other option or even mentions of external options when you are also the gatekeeper of the only marketplace.

The monopoly Apple has in this case is on distribution of software to iOS devices. They are leveraging this monopoly power to maintain a monopoly on payments.

Antitrust laws say this leveraging should not be allowed.

"App Store monopolies won’t last forever" LOL Nintendo laughing right now and they were not the start of it.

Nintendo was the last of the big three game platforms to introduce an online store.

> First there are a couple of different issues. Deciding what’s on the App Store is one issue but payment processing is a potential separate issue.

This is all the same issue -- whether there should be other stores. If there are other stores then the other stores could filter apps differently and use other payment methods.

> Second 30% May have made sense once when this was a small business. It’s not anymore. Apple is inviting these lawsuits by simply not throwing big publishers a home with reduced rates.

> Third, the whole tax on digital purchases is completely arbitrary. There was a time when Apple was working out what to do with Amazon and that’s when this role came about. Not being able to purchase kindle books just highlights the artificial and arbitrary nature of all this.

Other stores could also charge lower fees and not charge any fee for digital purchases, and provide competitive pressure for Apple to do so. This is probably the largest reason they don't want to.

> Fourth, at the risk of offending HN folks who self-servingly believe everyone wants or needs side-loading apps, most people benefit from the filtering of apps. Side-loading and unrestricted third party payments would simply be another attack vector.

Nothing about third party stores prevents filtering. It only provides a choice of who does the filtering separate from your choice of hardware and operating system.

But naturally if anyone can operate a store then you can operate your own and do your own filtering. Maybe most people don't want to do that; that's fine. They don't have to. Anyone could still choose to leave it to Apple or Debian.

> Lastly, a bunch of different app stores is a terrible user experience. Just look at the friction of finding which streaming service has a particular movie or TV show.

The problem there was never finding which service has it. There are several interfaces that allow you to search through all of them. The problem there is that you have to pay for each subscription and nobody wants to pay a monthly fee to a thousand separate subscription services.

But there is no monthly fee for an app store app. It's not a subscription service.

> There are several interfaces that allow you to search through all of them.

So I have to download an app to search through store fronts, which I have to download, to download my app?

And the same is true for traditional stores like groceries.

You can use a web browser to search (for exclusives and lower prices) through groceries web sites, which you have to go to or order from, to buy your desired groceries.

Competition is good.

Yes the same process done on any PC.

So many layers of indirection does not seem like a good user experience.

Not being able to subscribe to netflix from an Iphone sounds like a less convenient user experience.

The obvious answer that satifies everyone would be to a) allow alternate payment processors if the developers choose to forgoe the 30% or b) give the big companies than can roll these processors a lower cut to incenivize them to make one.

But if the answer was that obvious, this case would not have started.

There is no app store monopoly on Android. All Apple needs to do is flip a switch and bingo you can use F droid.

If Apple Store is so fucking good people will use it.

Apple's App store does little to filter malware as they don't instrument they Apps.

Even large companies abuse this, quit spreading misinformation.

It’s not just about Apple here. Credit card companies don’t let Apple pass along those fees to customers.

An app that costs 100$ and sells 1,000 copies has much lower transaction fees than an app that costs 1$ and sells 100,000 copies.

It’s not that much of a difference. Apple bundles app purchases over days/weeks into a single charge to save fees.

That only helps when people are making frequent purchases, most people aren’t buying apps/coins multiple times a week or even month.

Maybe not, but many people may have iCloud, Apple Music, etc. subscriptions and bundling those together with the occasional app or iTunes Store purchase saves a good amount of money on processing fees.

Do you have evidence for this? I have never seen them bundled and I don’t think they are allowed to bundle purchases and subscriptions.