Hacker News Reader

Comment by akg_67 | Hacker News Reader

I hope multiple App Stores don’t become a thing on iOS. The reason I like iPhone is that I am assured that apps I download from App Store are not shit and curated by Apple. Apple has vested interest to keep apps made available to be clean and not going to compromise iPhone. Android play store, in comparison, is full of crap and free for all, basically buyer (or downloader) beware.

Phone is used by too broad of user groups, from very young to very old, for apps to be left unchecked unlike laptops and desktops.

View on HN

"I hope multiple App Stores don’t become a thing on iOS. The reason I like iPhone is that I am assured that apps I download from App Store are not shit and curated by Apple."

Then dont install those other app stores and only rely on apples curated list, if other app stores ever become a thing on ios.

It'll end up similarly to macOS AppStore. Developers will avoid it, so user will be forced to use other stores to make his phone useful.

vbezhenar, for some reason there is no reply link visible in your commenr, so have to reply like this.

"It'll end up similarly to macOS AppStore. Developers will avoid it, so user will be forced to use other stores to make his phone useful."

So, kinda like on Androi... No, wait. It wont. Other stores will be in the margins likd on Android.

Have you seen the prompt you get when you install an app outside the play store, (and even worse give it permission to install other apps)?

Epic have made instructions on how to do it [0], it's a four step process to be able to install the game that involves changing two system default settings that both warn you not to do what you're about to do.

[0] https://www.epicgames.com/fortnite/en-US/mobile/android/new-...

I'm happy F-Droid user, so yes, i know the process.

The reality of what ends up happening is you end up with an app store per publisher, and needing to manage your payment details with each one individually, and deal with each stores handling of your data. I don't want to install the NYT store to download the nyt cooking app so they can take a bigger cut on their subscription. The reason this hasn't happened on Android is because you get a scary warning when you install apps from other sources.

Exactly what's blocking apple from using same kinda warning? So no, it wont happen.

Good thing epic aren't suing google at the same time for the exact reason we're discussing right here then isn't it?

Epic is free to sue who ever they whish. That means nothing. The argument was that 3rd party app stores would somehow affect apples appstore quality. That's false. If apple would allow installing apps from unknown sources and just give ugly warnings then, thus letting 3rd party appstores on ios, it would have no effect on qpple appstore content.

> The argument was that 3rd party app stores would somehow affect apples appstore quality. That's false.

With Apple in control, the developer faces the choice to play by Apple's rules, or lose out on the money to be made in their walled garden.

With Apple no longer in control, the user now faces the choice to play by the developer's rules, or lose out on the app.

That said, I'm actually not a fan of the walled garden approach, and won't be buying an iPhone in the forseeable future. It's just that I do understand the appeal.

>With Apple in control, the developer faces the choice to play by Apple's rules, or lose out on the money to be made in their walled garden.

>With Apple no longer in control, the user now faces the choice to play by the developer's rules, or lose out on the app.

Android has proven this is not true. Google has the same policies as Apple and does allow alternative app stores. Turns out the world works in a common sense way and everything turned out fine.

Do you think the existence of the epic store on wjncows has had an effect on the content of steam?

A really good example right now is riot. They distribute through their own launcher on PC rather than on steam. They have two sizeable games on mobile right now (wild rift and TFT). In a world where these are downloadable from the riot launcher on iOS rather than the app store, it seems likely riot (and other major publishers who do the same on PC) would follow suit? I don't see how having an app store without hearthstone, TFT, fortnite is the same quality as one with.

Instead of trying to compare to other totally different products, do the comparison to Android. Has any 3rd party appstore affected play store in any way? No. Start your argument from that fact.

Yes. Fortnite isn't on the play store.

And it's not in apple appstore neither, so clearly the reason is not the fact that non-playstore apps can be installed.

fortnite was in the app store until epic game's account was terminated for terms-of-service violations, so whatever point you're trying to make here isn't correct.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-53955183

The original argument was that 3rd party appstores would somehow affect the main appstore quality. And that argument is bs as Android demonstrates. So, please read the discussion and only comment once you understand the topic.

Except android has multiple app stores and most people just end up using the main one. There is no good reason to restrict user choice

> I don't want to install the NYT store to download the nyt cooking app so they can take a bigger cut on their subscription.

Then don't. Nobody is forcing you. That's what this is all about, not forcing people.

The counter-argument runs like this:

Third party developers want to get their apps onto the iPhone, because the platform has a lot of users, and there's a lot of money to be made. However, they will be forced to play by Apple's rules, which (according to the argument) is good for the customer, as the custodian of the platform has a vested interest in keeping them happy.

Now, if 3rd party stores were allowed, Apple's bargaining power which allowed them to force 3rd parties to respect the user's interest would go away, allowing developers to deliver a worse (eg privacy-violating) product.

Users who do not like this deal are free to go with an Android device instead of an iPhone. The popularity of the latter might suggest that quite a few people are reasonably happy with the status quo.

Counter-argument to what? As Android shows, allowing 3rd party appstores has 0 effect on the main appstore offering.

But if the iOS store is so much worse for devs than the Play store, wouldn’t there be more incentive for devs to push for a legitimate alt store to succeed on iOS?

Android's third-party app stores have been majorly gimped for a long time unless they were installed by the manufacturer. Further, they don't even have great reach even if they're installed as such, as evidenced by Epic wanting Fortnite back on the Play Store despite it being available on the Galaxy store.

> The popularity of the latter might suggest that quite a few people are reasonably happy with the status quo.

People haven't thought it through at all. If they've even considered this aspect of it, I'd be surprised.

iPhone popularity is due to a mix of very good engineering, presentation, marketing and network effects.

Smartphones are also very, very new for people. Give them time and they'll rebel against a single point of control sooner or later.

> Give them time and they'll rebel against a single point of control sooner or later.

Who knows. Gaming consoles have had a decent run, but of course that may not be that good a precedent as they've not evolved into general-purpose computing devices to the same degree that phones have...

The customers who don't like the console system can game on a PC. It's not a perfect substitute, but it's pretty close. Is there any real equivalent that offers more user control for smartphones though? Stock Android is a bit less restrictive, but still pretty bad, and custom ROMs are extremely niche.

Android already has the majority of the market. Apple is, perhaps deliberately, pricing themselves out of the emerging markets in Africa and Asia.

It's the reason why I don't even really give a toss: there's nothing on iOS that you can't get on Android.

Except a lower chance of trouble if you down load an app without some security assessment of it.

> Android already has the majority of the market.

Not in the US market where iPhones have the great majority and where this trial is taking place.

There are also definitely iOS exclusives.

The question is does Apple's bargaining power come from monopoly power? That's exactly what makes it anti-competitive.

> Apple's bargaining power which allowed them to force 3rd parties

You are literally saying that you agree that Apple has very serious market power, and has the ability to force the rest of the market, to do what it wants, using its illegal, anticompetitive behavior.

Go ahead and say that you want this. But you are just straight up admitting that Apple has anti-trust level market power, and is using illegal anti-competitive behavior.

Therefore, they would lose the lawsuit, under your argument.

How do you explain that the majority of apps are contaminated by spyware like the Facebook SDK and dozens of other equivalents? (which for the record is in breach of the GDPR and Apple could be considered complicit if they allow this while at the same time requiring all apps to comply with local laws and has removed apps who break or could be used to break the law before)

How do you explain scam apps that deliberately mislead users into signing up to a "free trial" subscription that renews at a ridiculous price 3 days later?

Have you looked at Google play store, in comparison? Apple is still doing 100x better job. 100% cleanliness is utopia but I will take an App Store that weeds out lot of contaminated apps than every other app being contaminated in some sort of way.

I do think that the apple app store has better quality apps. But to be frank, those 3 day trial autorenew apps are definitely more common on iOS.

There are so many highly rated iOS apps that look great and where you can't even get past the initial stage without having to sign up to a subscription without even know what it is.

Nobody is proposing that the Apple app store should go away, or that other stores shouldn't be curated. (E.g. exactly because the play store is as it is, on Android I go look at F-Droid first, because if it has something I trust it more)

Is someone taking the App Store from you? Does adding alternative options somehow corrupt the original App Store?

There could be an argument that allowing alternative stores would just mean every app would switch to those and be able to work around Apple's rules and act against consumers' best interests.

However, the fact that Apple only enforces the rules when it benefits them as opposed to consumers (so they are happy to turn a blind eye to spyware, but will crack down immediately on alternative payment options) means that in practice I don't see it making the situation any worse.

>There could be an argument that allowing alternative stores would just mean every app would switch to those

Which is a ridiculous argument as the network effects and default preference status of the App Store mean it'll still be pretty much a requirement to publish there if you want any users.

Not really.

Apple currently has the market power to keep Facebook and other similar scum at bay if they chose to (unfortunately, they're not doing anywhere near enough on this front).

Opening the floodgates to alternate stores would simply mean every mainstream service out there would require you to use that alternate store (isolated from Apple's enforcement) where all kinds of nastiness is permitted.

I would match rather sign up for a subscription through the iOS ecosystem, where I can easily and realisably cancel that subscription through Apple themselves as opposed to entering my credit card info and figuring out how to cancel for each and every application differently.

FWIW, people usually like to support lots of payment options, particularly ones that already have the customer's payment details on file and that the customer likes using, so as long as you are OK with the realization that people who pay not through Apple are going to pay like 10-25% less (depending on any number of factors, as Apple is honestly offering non-0 value) than you (which I honestly doubt, but you need to remember that a key part of this isn't the functionality but the cost: a ton of the money you are paying is just going to Apple right now) I would be shocked if companies didn't throw in Apple's IAP as a (more expensive) option. Like: for my store (Cydia), I never required developers to use my payment options (as that would be a horrible and anit-competitive thing to do) but they did anyway because users liked them so much and they were easy for the developer and I actually solved problems they had (license transfer, some of the customer support, etc.).

Personally I would prefer to sign up to a subscription via PayPal, where I can easily manage the subscription though a web site instead opening the "Music" app (!?!) and navigating through that nightmare

I am confused, are you saying that the only way to manage your subscriptions in iOS is via the music app and not the App Store?

What I fear is that as a reaction to Apple's recent moves on privacy (tracking transparency, requiring user consent prior to tracking, etc), Facebook is going to spin up its own App Store without such rules where user data is a free for all.

This wouldn't be a threat in itself, but having control of heavy hitters like the Facebook app, Instagram, and WhatsApp among others, they could drive traffic levels that no third-party App Store has ever seen overnight. They can also afford to buy other heavy-hitting exclusives, and some data hungry devs would likely come on board with no incentive at all.

This would be a terrible outcome. If iOS is to support third party app stores, I'd rather it be after legislation is passed that effectively enforces Apple's App Store privacy policies at a federal level.

Aren’t Apples policies enforced via app sandboxing though? Why would that be any different for third party apps?

Not really taking sides here, but sandboxing is not a panacea, unfortunately. There's also fingerprinting, abusing bugs in the system, faking system password fields, forcing the user to disable restrictions to the app so it works. There isn't much of a purely technological solution.

I don't get this argument. How can an alternative app Store affect the quality of the Apple app Store ? The alternate app Store is not gonna come installed by default. No one is gonna mistake the alternative app Store for the apple one. Apple is gonna make sure of that. Apple can even put up loads of warnings and dark UI stuff when installing an alternate app Store to dissuade the "noob" users.

Suppose you install a messaging app to talk to your friend. How do you know they installed their copy from the good App Store and not the bad one?

Your friend's messaging app is not installing apps on your phone, so it doesn't matter (to you).

Most messaging apps are centralized. Some form of server side checking can be easily added to make sure the client is legit and not tampered with. Same form of checking thing if it's P2P but it would be very cumbersome.

Now it is possible that someones has cracked the encrypted messaged payload and figured out how to fool the client authenticity checking part but at that point you are probably dealing with a state actor and even apple with their secure app Store cannot save you.

That's not state actor level of effort. Kids do that stuff for video games.

Why do you care what software your friend runs? Why do you feel the need to dictate what software someone else runs?

This is especially weird because your username is 0xEFF which initially made me think Electronic Frontier Foundation but it's definitely not that.

I don’t feel the need to dictate anything, but I care because my messaging app exchanges my personal data with my friends messaging app so there’s value knowing their copy is authentic.

Hypothetical progression: Epic sets up alternative App Store which becomes the only source of Fortnite 2.0, which is popular enough to drive installs of new alt store. Some other newly-popular viral app comes along (probably a social app that causes its users to exert pressure on their social group to join) and gambles on going with the Epic store only, piggybacking on Fortnite’s beachhead. Repeat. This process normalizes an alt store, forcing iOS customers to have to choose between trusting a new source vs missing out on apps. They can currently miss out on Android-only apps, but at least currently 99.9% of apps that run on iOS come from the single “trusted” store.

Another maybe-more-realistic version of this would be if some business software used their power over line workers to install things (since end-users are not really the customers in corporate software sales). Microsoft sets up their own store as the only source of Office Redux, and millions of iOS users are forced into this store via their employers. Same process as above: beachhead, gamble, dilution of Apple’s store.

It’s not hard to see how the process could snowball, though it’s certainly not guaranteed as there must be the right combination of events.

Another comment mentioned this. The fragmentation issue that comes up with multiple app stores. I agree that it is an issue that can come up. Pretty sure epic is trying for something like this in android.

But it dosent take away from my point that an alternative store does not affect the quality of apps in the main store.

As for an alt store becoming normalized I feel that users will only install the necessary app from the alt store and not anything else. A lot of alt stores tried to set themselves up in android but didn't succeed. I think it mostly comes down to incentives. Apple can easily change them to make sure no other store gets the upper hand

"I feel that users will only install the necessary app from the alt store and not anything else."

Have you ever had to wipe a relative's computer to get rid of the malware-infested browser toolbars they installed, not knowing any better? Or worse, pay a ransom in bitcoins to unlock the billing systems that help control a gasoline distribution pipeline? You may be somewhat overestimating the sophistication of users when it comes to technology.

I’ve heard it put this way: if you give the user root on the device, you are giving the malware the user is tricked into installing root.

iOS is an OS for people who are non-technical or for applications where people don’t want to worry about that stuff. If you want full control run Linux. MacOS and Windows also offer a balance that is skewed a lot more toward user control because they’re for “pro” use cases.

None of this happens on Android despite allowing multiple app stores. And companies can already install software for their employers via MDM.

Already like this scene in PC gaming, launchers everywhere.

For the apps I am using now, there will be probably:

Netflix Store, Amazon Store, Google Store, Epic Store, EA Store ... and list goes on

Adobe store :shrug:

> "No one is gonna mistake the alternative app Store for the apple one"

You've never heard any stories like "I put FireFox/Chrome on my parent's desktop and next time I went back they were using IE and said they didn't notice"? Or same with apps installed from an App store between real and imitation?

> "Apple can even put up loads of warnings and dark UI stuff when installing an alternate app Store to dissuade the "noob" users."

Why would they need to do that if "no one" is gonna mistake them?

As I said in the next sentence, apple is going to make sure that no app Store looks like theirs. It's pretty easy to do it too. Make sure app stores are only available to install from the Apple app Store. That way apple can look for any possible imitations.

The dissuading stuff was not needed. I was just frustrated with the line that some users are not tech savvy so all users must be equally restricted. It just seems unnecessarily black and white

It is tricky. Most people are pretty trusting of things they don’t understand. But a world where you walk into a cafe and 80% of the devices around you are malevolent is worse than one where only 5% are malevolent. I would like root on all my devices and also I would like to be able to run apps that want more permissions than I want them to have and they just get fake data when they call get location or whatever. But I don’t want to have to security assess all the apps I might like. To be sure mostly my apps are like the browser, the like doe reader, and find my iPhone. But I do have a weakness for solitaire and free flow and similar games. It seems very hard to get the open source versions of these and the other ones seem to display questionable ethics and to be ad revenue driven (where as I would happily pay a bit for new levels etc).

> Most people are pretty trusting of things they don’t understand.

[citation needed]

Gestures around at almost everything.

Cleaning products, anaesthesia, electrical goods, microwaves, internal combustion engines, skyscrapers, hydrogenated vegetable oil and other such ingredients, fire retardant in furniture, blockchains, cryptography, smoke detectors, x-rays, coronary bypass surgery, bridges, hydraulics, reservoirs, water treatment plants, refridgerators. Would you say the people who understand them in some meaningful way is >50% of the people who use/benefit from them them?

If people see others doing something, we assume it must be okay to do. If we see others selling something, we assume it must be okay to buy and use. We default to yes (pretty trusting), unless it's proven otherwise strongly enough to be banned.

If a major app moves to a different App Store, people will install the second (and third, and fourth, etc.) No one will say “oh, well, I want Instagram because all my friends have it but I’m not going to install Facebook’s store to get it because I want to keep my phone secure.”

The problem is that security and privacy benefits are somewhat intangible and hidden, so they are not enough to convince people to weight them heavily - this is the same reason why people download random software off the net and why the web is such a mess of trackers.

Apple’s approach tries to remove the need for users to think about the issue at all. Of course, it has downsides as well, but don’t underestimate what the ecosystem would be giving up once the door is opened to multiple stores.

Developers won't leave the App Store if Apple are offering good value to them and their customers.

If Apple stops offering good value (fair policies, commissions), then Apple should be "punished" by losing business.

Offering competing stores provides a strong incentive for Apple to make theirs even better. Developers would win and consumers would win. The only "loser" would be Apple (at least as far as short term financials are concerned).

Facebook, instagram or any ad-backed app users are the product not the customer.

Granted. But the underlying principle is the same, no? If Apple is offering better discovery, consumer protections, policies and support, then they should have the better store experience.

For the record, I think they are offering the best experience at present (by a long shot). That isn't guaranteed going forward though, and I believe competition here would be healthy.

OP did not say that it would affect the quality of the Apple app store. The specific quote was: "Apple has vested interest to keep apps made available to be clean and not going to compromise iPhone".

Allowing third-party app stores effectively means providing a vector to bypass the official app-review process, which is the cornerstone on which the permissioning system rests. If you allow third-party app stores, then any sufficiently-popular app can create their own "app store" and demand that you give it full permissions, which they will turn around and use to scrape data. It will become a race to the bottom, permissioning systems cannot stand if the app-review process does not exist, and the app-review cannot exist if third-party stores exist as a mechanism to let anyone publish anything.

Facebook has already gotten their hands slapped for exploiting sideloading to mine user data, and if they could spread it to the general user-base then they will do so immediately.

https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2019/01/facebook-and-google-...

So your question about "how can an alternative app store affect the Apple app store" is a red herring, and not at all what OP said - what OP said was "allowing third-party app stores will degrade the experience of iOS users" and that is absolutely true, Facebook has already tried to do this before and this will allow them to take another turn at the ring.

Im not sure why you got downvoted. Its a legit opinion.

I can see the argument for why this is better for iOS users, but it is also painfully obvious how it benefits Apple's monopoly and works against app developers.

I agree that it disproportionately benefits Apple but alternative is free for all like Android and all responsibilities fall on end user (not possible when you have from very young users to very old users, both unsophisticated and sophisticated users).

I just don’t buy the argument that end customers will lose out. The Apple AppStore will still be the default and available. People that want alternatives can get them at their own peril (like responsible adults, can you imagine?). And what percentage of people actually use alt app stores on Android?

Further, the Play store is evidence against supporting the company store concept at all and not an explanation for why an exclusive one should be allowed if it doesn't immediately induce vomiting.

I’m surprised fragmentation isn’t mentioned.

With multiple app stores, developers may not release to the Apple app store any more. Causing users to either use other app stores or miss out on apps that would previously been in the Apple store.

Causing them to be forced to evaluate the trustworthiness of each new app store they have to use.

Which will inevitably lead to some less tech savvy users having their information phished out from their phones.

Personally, it sounds like a hassle to me. I’m a big fan of the walled garden approach because I have zero desire to evaluate app store’s credibility and don’t feel I’m missing out on anything that could be side loaded, but then again, I only use my phone for communication, dating, photos, craigslist, and hackernews lately.

China has had multiple app storeson both ios (through widespread jailbreaking- the shop you buy your iphine from will install it for you)and android. The experience is very poor. They are full of scammy, pirated apps(although they do have emulators)

The majority of users just want their phone to work.

Then don't download apps that aren't from the app store, no one is forcing you to. But dont restrict choices of users who want to.

>I hope multiple App Stores don’t become a thing on iOS.

I hope Apple will also force only 1 browser, 1 text editor, 1 video player, 1 search engine, 1 bank/payment system. I hate PayPal so everyone should use Apple Pay because I want so, please Apple force them all to use what I like! /sarcasm

I wish this was actually sarcasm for most people. I legitimately don't understand why this group of people believe this is a good thing.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com