Hacker News Reader

Comment by ajsnigrutin | Hacker News Reader

I don't like (government) regulation, but I feel that this should be regulated...

If you're banned from a nightclub, it sucks.. but there are many, many other nightclubs (unless you live in a place small enough to have only one... then it sucks too).

If you're banned from apple, you basically have only google play left, and considering that most people specifically develop for one platform or another, it's usually not just losing half your customer base, but sometimes losing all of it.

Imagine having a potato farm, being able to sell potatos only to walmart, and walmart baning you from selling via them...

View on HN

I feel that the App Store is really a monopoly since the Play Store is something else (it uses your personal data to sell ads, something I want to stay far away from).

Also, competition law seems to be way too simple. We should have at least 10 similar-sized competitors in this field, yet we are stuck with this duopoly.

Play Store has local alternatives because Android allows third party stores.

So App Store is a monopoly on Apple devices, and on Android based devices there's plenty of choice ranging from bad for privacy (Play store) to fully FOSS-only (F-droid).

Let's be fair... 99% of your users will never find your app if it's not directly on the play store.

Probably true, but at least it's an option.

On iOS, if you don't publish the app on App Store, 0% of your users will be able to install it, because there is simply no alternative.

Two workarounds that I've seen apps that don't meet app store guidelines are altstore [1] and TestFlight, which I guess doesn't have the same rigorous oversight that the app store does? The latter still does require the developer to have an Apple Developer account, though.

[1] https://altstore.io/

This is absolutely true, but at the same time I am still extremely grateful that I can have applications like NewPipe that otherwise would be practically impossible to build/distribute. Not to say that there isn't room for improvement.

Newpipe has a pretty specific userbase,... if it was on top of the "trending" apps in play store, there would be a lot more users... since it's not, it's just people like you, me, and a bunch of other nerds using it, while "normal people" just wait through the ads, because they're unaware that alternatives exist.

For us (well, atleast me), getting an apk from github is not a problem, also not clicking three times to update the app... "normal users" usually don't do this, and some even get scared at the scary messages on phones, warning users about "alternative sources" and "play protect" and other stuff.

Definitely, the UI to sideloading is a real problem. But Youtube would be unusable for me on Android without NewPipe, it helps so much.

I'm not really arguing that this is a great solution for everyone (or that sideloading should magically mean that Android isn't being noncompetitive), just pointing out that even insufficient solutions can really make a really big difference for some people.

I want the sideloading and updating experience on Android to be better, and there are some very real frustrations that come from that -- including that there are great apps like NewPipe that I can't really recommend to everyone I know because of the complexity of installing them. But in contrast, I don't think I could even use iPhone myself because these apps are so essential to me, so I'm grateful that at least I have a phone where it's possible for me to jump through these hoops.

To your point though and in regards to the person you were replying to, you're right that none of that changes anything about whether Play Store has what is essentially a monopoly over other Android storefronts. I would love to live in a world where I could recommend NewPipe to people without feeling like I also need to borrow their phone and sit down with them and help them install it.

----

> For us (well, atleast me), getting an apk from github is not a problem

Pro tip which you might already be aware of, but F-Droid supports custom repositories, and the NewPipe team maintains their own repository that gets immediate updates. Installing NewPipe from F-Droid directly isn't something I would recommend because the app needs to be updated so frequently and F-Droid is slow to pull in those changes. But if you use their custom upstream repo, you can still have F-Droid manage the updates/installation while getting basically direct updates from the Github repo.

This would of course be better if Android allowed the F-Droid store to auto-update apps, but...

I vaguely remember hearing that at some point Android was going to allow this, but then I haven't heard anything since and my version of F-Droid still requires manually clicking an install button, so I'm not sure if Google ever actually followed through.

Non-system app stores can already update apps automatically since Android 12. https://developer.android.com/reference/android/Manifest.per...

> Let's be fair... 99% of your users will never find your app if it's not directly on the play store.

99% of app users get an app by clicking on a link that was sent/recommended to them.

So more accurate to say "100% of users will never find your app on a store if it's not directly on a store."

I work on health/social service apps for state and local municipalities. The conversation about putting them on the stores ends when we explain that the stores don't allow such apps. Which is a blessing in disguise ans PWAs are far superior in most every way.

That's maybe us ners, who google stuff and follow recommendations.

Most people just look at the "trending" stuff in the main playstore window, or search the store with general keywords (eg "menstrual calendar"), and try the first few hits.

Never stopped Fortnite or Epic Games from selling their own game on their own terms on android profitably and successfully.

Apple simply banned them. That’s why I cannot equivocate Apple and Google’s market dominance, Apple is just so much more obscene and over the top, Google at least has some more shame.

> Never stopped Fortnite or Epic Games from selling their own game on their own terms on android profitably and successfully.

Epic sued Google too. They're going to trial in January 2023.

The problem is no one wants to invest into making an mobile OS that OEMs will use. Nearly every alt mobile OS I've seen feels like it's coupled to the hardware and meant to be unique or super privacy focused which is a turn off for OEMs. OEMs have already been burnt by creating their own OS so none of them are getting in the mix. Microsoft screwed up too badly to come back. And Blackberry just staginated.

Pinephone uses Linux. Pretty straight forward.

The one thing Linux seems to lack is good tried and tested sandboxing of untrusted applications. And of course an ecosystem of developers (e.g. why I can't run my bank app on Linux).

The traditional way to bootstrap this is to support existing apps. Which in theory for Android is easy -- getting Android apps to run on Linux is what they already do.

But then they weaponize inconvenience. You can run the app, but if you want Google Play, they stick you with their terms. SafetyNet blah blah. If you don't, the bank owns the copyright on the bank app so third party devs can't give ordinary users a convenient legal way to install it.

So third party alternatives get friction on purpose and can't gain users. And without users people don't develop native apps.

Android apps have no notion Linux even exists, it isn't exposed to userspace as public API.

The Android runtime has a notion that Linux exists and in fact runs on Linux. It doesn't take something like Wine to do it.

Compare what it would take to get iOS apps to run on a Linux phone.

Indeed, and someday might be using Zirkon instead of Linux.

Blackberry, Jolla and several other Linux + Android attempts have proven that being easy isn't enough.

As usual, the answer to 'why not Linux' is market share. Linux has numerous ways to sandbox applications. What it doesn't have is an advertising campaign promoting it on the desktop/phones. So it has a small number of users in those areas. Which means companies that dont care about freedom won't support it. And thus: banking programs dont run on the pinephone yet.

You can, of course, access your bank from a browser.

> You can, of course, access your bank from a browser.

For now. Do you think the W3C would resist if banks tried to standardise a way for sites to determine if you are running with Secure Boot enabled? This would be part of a system to prevent browsers from spoofing their user agent string / version number.

They ignored the protests of those opposed to DRM, and I can't imagine there being as much objection to banks trying to protect users from browser vulnerabilities and kernel-level keyloggers.

Of course some Free Software advocates would again "cry wolf", predicting that banks would start to block requests from "unapproved" OSes, but those claims would be dismissed as scaremongering, right up until it started happening (and the wolf started eating their sheep).

I even think MBNA recently started blocking Firefox. It's a dark time for us all.

It's a pretty straight forward path to market suicide.

The linux-phone ecosystem seems to be doing alright just by porting applications from the rest of the ecosystem. It's a lot more usable than it was a year ago.

There's no inherent reason, just market effects. It's a positive feedback loop. If you want to be rid of Apple and Google, support Linux. More support will lead to adoption, and thus a bigger market. Or you can continue to genuflect to Apple, thanking them as they lock down and prevent any opportunity to compete with them. It's our collective choice.

The impetus isn't really on consumers to use half baked products in hopes that it'll improve over time. It's on developers of alternatives to make it at the minimum good enough, but more so actually compelling to use the product. Firefox is losing market share every day. I'd say it's probably "good enough" to be a viable alternative for people that are looking for an alternative but not compelling enough to convince anyone to switch to it. They're fighting against momentum.

Linux on phones isn't even at "good enough," let alone compelling.

Yeah, it's going to take folks to think about what they want from the future, instead of just right now. Free market or fiefdom. Doesn't have to be Linux, but it's pretty clear walled gardens == fiefdoms.

Its interesting because you can really see how we end up with dictators in politics. Doesn't need to be a coup, people voluntarily give it up for small conveniences.

If a phone is important enough that you think that it's critical that people consider using alternatives for the sake of the future, then those alternatives need to consider why they're that critical and ensure that they are meeting those needs.

Alternatively, it's not that important and as such the market being a "fiefdom" is irrelevant. In which case suggesting people switch to alternatives is also irrelevant because it simply doesn't matter.

Forgive me, I'm not sure what youre trying to say. The relevant reason not to have fiefdoms is demonstrated by the article, is it not? The king can unilaterally destroy you or your business at a whim.

That's the intrinsic risk of your business depending on other business' platforms. We're witnessing the effects of this currently with Meta's revenue being heavily impacted by Apple's privacy initiatives on their platform.

I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. Even if you think that the status quo is problematic, I don't think that suggesting that consumers switch to something that is terrible is a pragmatic solution.

I see. My point is it's a choice we all make everyday. How else can we do it? We can choose to live free, or as serfs. I acknowledge that you disagree.

And yeah, Meta sucks.

Most of the ill effects of monopolies also occur in duopolies, so it's really besides the point whether it's a monopoly or not. What it clearly isn't is a competitive market.

Yep, and even here it's not an "independent" duopoly (basically walmart and target in the same city) but switching from one to another means buying a new device, sometimes for $1k+, and your whole ecosystem.... if we're talking about developers here, also learning a new programming language and doing all the work again.

Yeah, these are really independent markets, in the same way that a store can be a monopoly even if it is only a monopoly "West of the Mississippi" with another not-actually-competing store in the East (which might or might not be a monopoly there; in the case of mobile app markets it is, and the result is really two monopolies, not one duopoly).

The App Store also uses your personal data to sell ads. The difference is the Play Store isn't the only game in town on the devices that have it.

Interestingly, there are huge number of monopolies like that on the consumer side too. Let's say you're a big fan of Marvel - then, you have to pay Marvel prices for tickets and merch, as they have a monopoly on Marvel universe IP. Same for Magic:the Gathering - for millions of fans of the game, there is no substitute, so they begrudgingly pay whatever Hasbro commands them.

Those cases don’t fit the standard definition of a monopoly. A monopoly is “a situation where there is a single seller in the market” (OECD). In both those cases many alternatives exist using a reasonable market definition. Just because a company has pricing power doesn’t mean it’s a monopoly.

And losing all the work you've put into code that only runs on Apple devices.

Apple can decide to throw all that investment down the drain.

At least with android, you can release the raw .apk so that your existing users aren't left with nothing.

Exactly, but I published one of my projects on GitHub, at least its source code can useful for someone else.

never mind

Is it? Do you have a source?

The App Store accepts stolen open source projects that violate the project's licensing. App review has no knowledge of that whatsoever. Review is incredibly superficial.

I’m usually opposed to government regulation in tech or giving the government power more in general.

But I don’t see any negative consequences of passing a law saying a platform must provide a reason with documentation if a paying user is banned. There also must be an independent review board that is answerable to the board of directors. But not the CEO.

On the other hand, it came out in the Epic case that there is “no duty to deal”. Meaning you can’t force a company to do business with anyone as long as it isn’t for a protected reason.

The government can’t and shouldn’t force a company to do business with someone as in the Walmart case. Would you want the government to force a health or drug store to sell cigarettes?

What's special about paying users? You could just refund them when you ban them.

A refund does not make you a non paying customer. In the same way getting injured by a faulty product can't be resolved with "fully refunded, they're not our customer anymore".

Accepting payment makes some obligations more real. As a free user you accept whatever tos apple throws at you and that's it. As a paying customer you buy a service, with many protections that includes. (depending on your country)

>A refund does not make you a non paying customer. In the same way getting injured by a faulty product can't be resolved with "fully refunded, they're not our customer anymore".

A faulty product that simply doesn't work can totally be resolved with "fully refunded, they're not our customer anymore".

Technically true, but missing the context. What happens is regulated by applicable local law: if both sides are happy with that solution and it's legal to do so, the issue may be resolved with a refund.

For example in Australia ACCC says that sure, you're entitled to a refund as one of the options when a product/service fails. But that doesn't stop you from being able to claim damages or losses even if you're fully refunded. https://www.accc.gov.au/consumers/consumer-rights-guarantees...

Actually I'd love to see the result of involving ACCC in this situation if someone in Oz gets terminated. They can be very detailed in their analysis if they're interested.

I don't know how things work in Australia, but I'd be really surprised if someone signing up to sell apps on the app store would be treated as a consumer.

Also, paying for the right to develop on Apple platforms is hardly a service.

ACCC rules apply to products and services. The first sentence in the paid apps agreement is:

> You hereby appoint Apple and Apple Subsidiaries (collectively “Apple”) as: (i) Your agent for the marketing and delivery of the Licensed Applications to End-Users

Apple is providing devs a service.

There are services which Apple provides to developers as a part of the agreement, but to be an Apple Developer involves much more than that.

>ACCC rules apply to products and services.

Over here in Europe consumer protection laws generally do not apply to contracts between businesses. i.e. A photographer buying a camera for their business use would not necessarily be covered.

Right. That would make as much sense as letting someone walk on burglary charges because they brought all of the stolen goods back and arranged them as they were before.

Not sure I follow, burglary usually refers to entering a building without permission for the purpose of committing another crime e.g. theft.

Bringing stolen goods back and arranging them as they were before would often be a sufficient defense against a theft charge, as an intention to permanently deprive the owner of the item is often a necessary element of the crime. This would presumably also reduce your burglary charge to trespass.

https://vistacriminallaw.com/borrowing-theft/

https://www.floridacriminaljustice.com/blog/2017/08/theft-is...

There's no evidence that Apple is refunding banned developer accounts, either for the yearly developer fee or for unpaid App Store sales.

In fact, a few of my indie developer friends have gotten their monthly App Store payments held up by Apple while Apple investigates so-called "unusual activity" (which turned out to be nothing).

>There's no evidence that Apple is refunding banned developer accounts, either for the yearly developer fee or for unpaid App Store sales.

I'm not really sure how that's relevant here, we're discussing hypothetical regulation that scarface74 is proposing.

>In fact, a few of my indie developer friends have gotten their monthly App Store payments held up by Apple while Apple investigates so-called "unusual activity" (which turned out to be nothing).

This is likely unavoidable as Apple is subject to a number of AML regulations.

Every company that deals with payments does that. Banks, PayPal and I’m sure the various places like UpWork. You routinely hear that Amex puts people in “financial review” and locks your account out because of “suspicious activity”

> Every company that deals with payments does that. Banks,

Never in my life has my bank withheld a payment. And I've never had a job paycheck held back because of "suspicious activity".

> Amex puts people in “financial review” and locks your account

Amex doesn't pay you; you pay Amex.

I'm talking about companies refusing to pay what they already owe you. App Store payments to developers are for app sales that are already long completed, and Apple has already taken the money from App Store customers.

>Never in my life has my bank withheld a payment. And I've never had a job paycheck held back because of "suspicious activity".

Either your bank is particularly lenient or your transactions are particularly boring. Most paychecks definitely fall into the "particularly boring" category.

OTOH App store transactions are a relatively big money laundering risk, you are receiving payments from large amounts of different people.

> OTOH App store transactions are a relatively big money laundering risk

To a longtime indie developer???

We're not talking about huge sums of money here. One month's income for a little indie App Store developer. More or less (probably less) the amount of a software engineer's monthly paycheck.

And what's Apple's "evidence" for money laundering in these cases anyway? It always turns out to be nothing, and payments are eventually restored, but the developer is deprived of cash flow for a month or several with no explanation ever.

Anyway, for developer accounts that Apple terminates (again without explanation), I believe that Apple simply confiscates the money and never pays what it owes to the developer.

This is unfortunately it goes. Nothing Apple specific.

>And what's Apple's "evidence" for money laundering in these cases anyway? It always turns out to be nothing, and payments are eventually restored

Unfortunately, they're by law not allowed to discuss these things.

>Anyway, for developer accounts that Apple terminates (again without explanation), I believe that Apple simply confiscates the money and never pays what it owes to the developer.

Unlikely.

You'd think so, but you'd be wrong.

I can guarantee you that if you start depositing large payments over $10K that your bank is going to report it - it’s required by the law.

If the bank thinks you are laundering money, there are going to be investigation.

I once unknowingly deposited a fake money order in my checking account. I was naive and I fell for the old “we need to pay for three months rent with this money order and can you refund the difference”.

Before I even called the bank once it dawned on me that it was probably fraudulent, the bank had already put a hold on my account.

If Apple think you are working in a company that is under sanctions, they are going to verify that you aren’t.

> I can guarantee you that if you start depositing large payments over $10K that your bank is going to report it - it’s required by the law.

What do you mean exactly by "deposit"? These are automatic deposits from Apple or from an employer.

A ton of people make >$120K a year and receive >$10K in payments per month. It's not unusual at all.

> I once unknowingly deposited a fake money order in my checking account.

How is this relevant? There are no fake money orders here.

> If Apple think you are working in a company that is under sanctions

Again, how is this relevant to longtime indie devs?

> A ton of people make >$120K a year and receive >$10K in payments per month. It's not unusual at all.

Whether it’s unusual is subject to a Risk Assessment. NACHA happily sells Risk Assessment Workbooks to your bank’s Compliance Department [1].

[1]: https://www.nacha.org/products/ach-risk-assessment-workbook

Because if you don’t pay for a product, you shouldn’t expect much. It’s why it amazes me that people tie so much of their lives to Google - an ad company.

> Would you want the government to force a health or drug store to sell cigarettes?

Health/drug stores are not a monopoly (or a duopoly if you count google, but still a monopoly for apple users).

If you could get apps for iDevices on "every street corner", one of them not selling apps from that specific developer wouldn't matter either.

I wish the Apple developer program was set up more like a lease, where you're leasing a "storefront" from Apple. And they can deny you, or choose not to renew your lease, or buy you out of your lease. But they shouldn't need to approve individual app updates any more than a shopping center owner needs to approve the individual merchandise.

No one would sign a lease that said "we can kick you out at any time," but that's what developers are agreeing to with Apple.

It would require Apple to more selective up front about who they chose to do business with, but I think that would be a good thing, because it would give developers more stability once they were "in."

> Would you want the government to force a health or drug store to sell cigarettes?

That's a bizarre argument. You could argue similarly against speed limits, because next the government will force you to drive in reverse or something.

Companies hate regulation but they love to give plenty of reasons why regulation is needed.

They love regulation when it favours them :)

It’s the opposite. Large companies love regulation as it creates extra costs and hurdles for smaller startups that might out-compete them otherwise. Regulation secures incumbent power.

I was approached by a mid-level exec from Intel about participating in their 'app store' years ago. It was obvious that the middle-management was salivating at the idea of running a "store" with absolute control. No deal happened, that I know of..

IIRC, it IS regulated. GDPR and American equivalents have provisions that require companies to provide all of the data they have about you, and forbid companies from disabling accounts with automated systems without manual review. You may have to contact data protection authorities in your jurisdiction and file a report, then contact Apple's data protection officers and reference the report you made. I've had luck doing this with other tech companies in the past. It should be something that a person could manage themselves with a few days of persistence, but I suspect there are lawyers who would help with this as well. IMHO, the legal team at a big tech company would rather manually review an account and reinstate it, than take on the potential liability of having violated data protection laws. You just have to convince them that you know your rights and how to assert them, and there's a good chance they'll quickly comply with the law.

Could you cite the American equivalent legislation that protects those rights? Specifically the right to manual review?

As an EU citizen, I'm more familiar with GDPR. I recall seeing that there were similar requirements in the US, but it may have just been California's CCPA.

The GDPR says no such thing. I can guarantee you that if the bank or any institution that has any financial dealings with you suspects you’re doing something illegal based on an automated system. They are going to lock you out first and then investigate.

Article 15 and article 22. Look it up if you're interested. They can automatically lock you out, but they are obligated to send you all the data they have about you, including whatever data caused their automated system to lock you out, and they are obligated to manually review automated lockouts.

Edit: Here's the intro to article 22:

> The data subject shall have the right not to be subject to a decision based solely on automated processing, including profiling, which produces legal effects concerning him or her or similarly significantly affects him or her.

This is definitely not the law. If for instance an airlines automatic system thinks you are on a no fly list. They are going to keep you from flying first and then investigate.

That’s why for people who have issues with security, they can also add their redress number to flights

GDPR Article 22:

Do you really think that implies that if any regulated entity’s automated system flags you for doing something illegal that they aren’t going to lock you out and then have a human reviewer? I’m sure the EU has something like the no-fly list where they detain you first and then investigate.

I'm not saying literally anything you've suggested in your comment. Have a nice weekend.

> I don't like (government) regulation, but I feel that this should be regulated...

Ha, wow. "I do not like regulation, until it affects me, then I love it."

> Imagine having a potato farm, being able to sell potatos only to walmart, and walmart baning you from selling via them...

What you are talking about here is the dream of Libertarians.

It doesn’t affect me at all either way. I’m all for government regulation that forces a company to be transparent where customers can make informed decisions. It’s not some ignorant government officials trying to establish technical standards.

It’s a very Libertarian stance that give consumers the power to make informed decisions.

Notice I did not say that the government should have oversight on the process that private companies are allowed to ban users. I said the independent review board should be answerable to the board of directors not the CEO.

> I’m all for government regulation that forces a company to be transparent where customers can make informed decisions.

What is your standard for judging where transparency should be legally required or not?

Transparency should always be required to allow intelligent individuals to make informed decisions about how they spend their money.

How much transparency? Can I walk into any corporations office and go through their file cabinets?

The information that’s needed for you to make an informed decision between alternatives on the products you buy. You don’t need to know that Apple is thinking about acquiring Netflix to determine if the rules on the App Store are more agreebable than the play store

Who are you to decide for me what I need to know and what I don’t need to know?

If Apple is going to buy Netflix they may buy it and shut it down. Or at least not let it on the Apple platform. That might be important to know if I’m going to dedicate myself to the ecosystem.

I’ll answer for the commentor

“When it affects my profit!”

Reply on news.ycombinator.com