Hacker News Reader

Comment by hectormalot | Hacker News Reader

I think that’s okay, I’m in the same position that I trust Apple more in handling this than the apps themselves. Eg I’ve read some interesting stories on how hard it is to cancel a NYTimes subscription.

What is - on my opinion - problematic is that apple prohibits alternative payment options. Eg I’d be happy to see (8€ per month with apple [pay now], 7€ per month direct [register on our website], but even that’s prohibited. That is Apple using its position as one of the 2 major phone offerings to prevent competition in a way that I consider monopolistic.

View on HN

So you also trust Apple better than yourself, because if you will ever find yourself needing an app that Apple blocks, well, you'll have to accept that it is in your 'best interests'.

Generally, it's true. If Apple blocked nothing, how many flashlight apps that also mine bitcoin would be installed?

So first of all - just because the end-user wants Apple to check for actively malicious programs doesn't mean they assent to all forms of control. Secondly, even on the matter of software deemed malicious by Apple, I think it's questionable how reasonable it is for Apple to entirely remove the end-user from the decision making process.

Even on really weakly policed platforms like windows, people still tend to leave virus scanners enabled; and on android similarly most people don't choose to expose themselves to unnecessary risk by sidestepping its store - at least as far as I know. Users regularly do really stupid things, so some level of external control is perhaps not unreasonable, but how much, and for what? And should Apple even get to be involved in that decision?

Do not forget that in some countries Apple also blocks apps that the current regime deems dangerous for it. Like, apps of the opposition news outlets, etc. Apple is quite content with taking your freedom away: if you needed it, you wouldn't have relinquished controls of YOUR phone for other people to decide what to run on it.

That requirement is never going away, and Apple is never the only company involved in doing that kind of stuff.

Therefore, that argument really has no bearing on this discussion.

Whether Apple should try harder to stand up to these repressive governments is a good discussion to have, but it’s not the one we’re having right now,

Google does this too. As I understand it, their choice is to remove the app or stop selling devices, software, and services in those countries. This is definitely something that tech companies could do better at. I wish they would choose the latter option just once.

At the present moment, I can easily sideload any app on Android, I can even install a third-party appstore like F-droid (this freedom can be taken away by Google in three future, but still far it is available).

Nothing even remotely similar is possible on non-jailbroken iPhone.

But even if Google removes it, you can just install the app on Android anyway.

Have you ever tried to cancel a newspaper/gym membership? It's not easy. I want freedom from my subscriptions.

"Freedom from" is a quite liberating concept.

So how can Apple make it easier to cancel a subscription if they don't have control over the payment method?

By allowing you to pay via an apple controlled payment method; or (less securely) by contractually obligating them to honor centralized cancellation requests.

I'm almost positive many people would gladly pay extra - certainly temporarily - to be sure no untrustworthy third party gets direct access to their money. The question is merely whether apple gets to force that when both end user and app developer would prefer otherwise, and if there are any conditions on such requirements by Apple.

One way I'd like it to work, us that you can choose to sign up through Apple, and have the service pass their cut % along to you as a greater cost, or sign up without apple's system for presumably cheaper.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com