Hacker News Reader

Steam already has curators/curation lists exactly like you describe. They are usually not particularly interesting.

Anyone can make a web page with apps they think are great, and links to those apps that will go straight to store pages. Very few people do.

These are done rarely because there's little or no money in it. Give the curators a significant cut, and now you have a lot of curators and a lot of gaming of the system.

Now you need to curate the curators, which is still a significant problem.

Throughout all of that, you'll have those claiming that curation is censorship. They don't matter because you can never satisfy them.

Who ensures security in decentralized app stores? Curators, independently? Or can they "inherit" that from the major app stores?

None of this is anywhere near simple.

With free software and reproducible builds, it is possible for small scale curators to inherit the security of the large scale curators. That is why they are key pieces of the f-droid.org collection.

> Imagine if you could view Apple or Google's app store with an "awesome app" list curated by a list of experts you follow without all the junk of suggested apps or ads.

My highschool history teacher once said the answer to nearly everything is money.

Why don't we have mobile app stores that operate in a manner similar to package managers? Money. Why can't I install what I want on my iPhone? Money.

This distinction is very minor. From my perspective there is almost no difference whether I am viewing a curated app list as a web page or as an alternative App Store. This has almost no consumer advantage and a vastly increased risk surface as an obvious downside.

This, from my perspective anyway, seems to be one of the biggest drivers of adoption for closed ecosystems. Users want to feel safe and not vet everything ( because it is hard to do well ) and it is genuinely hard to argue with that stance from a very pragmatic POV. As my friend once put it 'I don't want to spend my valuable time left fiddling'. For the argument you mention, I think I agree, because I still remember getting calls from family members, who installed something and now had constant unremovable popups everywhere.

That said, Apple seems to be more targeted now precisely ( compared to non-Apple linux and Windows ) because it has more people, who are lulled by the sense of security Apple curation model provides.

edit: I kinda get that the article is mostly about mobile devices, but the app-store concept appears to have moved to desktop world as well.

I agree - for most users safety is more important than "alternative stores".

This post is very manipulative in my view. It would be really easy to avoid that for the authors - just list the downsides of allowing any app to be installed on an iPhone. What are the consequences of allowing your parent to install "Bank of Amerika" on their phone? Exactly.

How people access apps is not a on/off switch between walled garden and dog eat dog free for all. Decentralized systems need to be designed with safety in mind, just like walled gardens do. Both can be done badly or done well.

Let's be fair - I don't think we're talking about simply swapping lists when you zoom out. At a minimum, any value prop would have to match the existing major app stores such as verifying binary sources, rejecting malicious apps, and the like.

I think the main question I see is - do multiple stores benefit the user?

I'm not sure of that answer but I think we can agree that multiple stores do NOT help the default app store, which in turn could be beneficial to the consumer (multiple stores that have to compete on pricing w/ deals, self publishers offering a cheaper price directly, etc. - think more like grocery stores selling the same stuff vs farmers market vs direct from farm).

I'm no economist but I think we could also agree that having at least a few options is generally A Good Thing.

edit: regardless, even in a world with multiple stores the point re: attack surface is a good one and one of your other comments regarding what users actually value like safety is an important one, which as a business are the things you need to weigh on to make a profit

I disagree that the main question is: "do multiple stores benefit the user?". The main question is: "Should the user have the choice in their stores?". Apple believes that their users should not have that choice, and Google used that to drive adoption with Android by making it more open. AS Google gained the market share and power, they locked down Android more and more to gain those monopoly-level profits. Based on data that was released as part of Oracle v. Google, it looks like they have over 40% profit margins. Plus notice how Google just cut their fee in half (30% to 15%). That means they were rolling in cash.

There are many alternative stores available for Android. In my experience this only leads to:

1. Less trusted software. Can I trust Russian Yandex app store? Can I trust Amazon app store?

2. Focus on upselling their own / affiliated apps.

3. No actual increase in choice. Some devices just come preinstalled with alternative stores for no other reason than their own monetary benefit.

4. A theoretical benefit that "I have choice" and if someone bans something I _might_ be able to install it from a different store. Of course oppressive regimes don't just ban apps, they often restrict internet in more severe ways.