Hacker News Reader

Comment by Despegar | Hacker News Reader

>To help protect against unsafe apps, Apple is discussing the idea of mandating certain security requirements even if software is distributed outside its store. Such apps also may need to be verified by Apple — a process that could carry a fee.

Developers are about to get a surprise about what they're actually paying for. This is the problem with believing their own talking points about "paying 30% for payment processing."

So now they'll be paying for actual third-party payment processing, as well as lawyers and accountants to ensure they're complying with Apple's royalty agreements to license their technology.

View on HN

There's a universe of FOSS that hasn't needed third-party payment, lawyers, accountants, etc. because they do not perceive the purpose of apps as "making money."

That universe doesn't quite exist on iOS, partly because Apple makes it so uncomfortable in ways to attempt. I am hopeful that this shakeup might, in some way, make that easier. I've always wanted to ship some basic apps that do things without any ads or purchases or whatnot.

> I've always wanted to ship some basic apps that do things without any ads or purchases or whatnot.

Besides the developer program cost (which I assume will still exist in this EU world) what is stopping you from doing this now?

On top of $100/year developer license, you also need an Apple laptop (or desktop) to develop for iOS devices. You are legally (though not technically) forbidden to run a copy of macOS on non-Apple hardware, even if a legitimate copy were obtainable without purchasing some hardware.

Apple is a hardware company, an appliance company if you wish, and also a media company. The fact that they are forced to also produce general computing devices as a wayto run stuff like Ableton or Photoshop is, I suspect, seen as a pesky legacy of Apple II days.

> , even if a legitimate copy were obtainable without purchasing some hardware.

Pedantic, but the license agreement line requiring that 'MacOS can only run on Apple hardware' is, itself, in service of the fact that they only license the software to you if you purchase their hardware.

Exactly. IIRC you can legitimately run macOS on a VM, but the VM should run on Apple hardware.

A Hackintosh is a transgression.

The price of a developer account? FOSS is a big enough giveaway as is, most people doesn’t like the idea of paying for giving away their own free time

This won't be solved by 3rd party stores. You need to buy a mac and pay the developer fee just to BUILD apps for iOS.

You don't need to pay a fee to develop an app, only to publish it

You can build them without a developer account, but then you will have to re-sign your own apps every 7 day and can only have 4 such app on your phone at a time.

Yes. That should be solved too.

Apple's review process and their rules about the kind of apps and code that are allowed to run? Heck, do they even allow GPLv2 and GPLv3 apps on the app store?

It doesn’t matter whether they do. The anti-tivoization clause in the GPLv3 license (https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#Tivoization) forbids developers from selling iOS apps that contain GPLv3-licensed software (the situation w.r.t. GPLv2 is less clear)

I don't think that would apply if it is possible to compile the app yourself and install your modified version by side loading it.

Not really the problem.

It would violate the terms of those licenses for Apple to distribute binaries in the same manner that they currently are.

Not the original poster, but maybe:

Dealing with the capricious app store approval processs?

Not being allowed to use GPL code (might still be a problem for 3rd party app stores, but maybe not for sideloading. Maybe.)?

Having to develop on a mac (which will still be a problem)?

If the FOSS universe wants to make web apps, that's great. But they didn't need this law to do that. If they want to make native iOS apps, well now they'll be using Apple's intellectual property, which won't be for free.

Why is "making an app that calls iOS APIs" an use of Apple's IP that they should be compensated for?

That's like saying people shouldn't be allowed to make unofficial accesories for physical products without paying the company because the original designs for the product itself are patented.

It should be Free. People are okay with literally stealing money from corporations in the name of “tax,” yet they balk at making SDKs Free? Platforms should capture some of the economic returns to have good incentives to improve, but the majority should go to users and third-party developers. It should also be possible to release GPL software on any platform. That’s the minimum bar for not screwing over users.

It is likely that the use of web-based experiences will eventually surpass the need for app stores. In many cases, the functionality of a website is similar to that of a mobile app. However, Apple's restrictions on the progress of progressive web apps (PWAs) on Safari may slow the transition from app stores to web-based options. In the meantime, it may be worthwhile to consider visiting a website before downloading an app for your next mobile experience.

I have never encountered a PWA where you couldn’t immediately tell it was one. If that ever goes away, then maybe.

It could easily go away we just have to allow PWAs greater access to native features on our phones.

In terms of raw capabilities, sure. But they will still feel worse since native apps are almost always much nicer to use in my experience.

I write web applications for a living and while I LOVE how well-featured the browser APIs are becoming, sometimes I just want an app.

I don't really subscribe to one camp. There's pros and cons to both.

That’s funny. Because when the iPhone launched Apple offered just that: their own native apps and the rest had to contend with web based apps and a api to access phone specific features and UI elements. Only much later they announced the App Store and I doubt they will let it go now. In favor of non native web interfaces.

Indeed. If we will not get iDroid soon, I expect the EU regulation to be adjusted to the point that ensures that FOSS does not get locked out anymore.

> Developers are about to get a surprise about what they're actually paying for.

IMO a lot of developers are paying for Apple to have an unreasonable amount of control and the entire point of side loading or competing app stores is to get rid of that because we don't want to be paying Apple to act against our interests.

I don't want to pay for Apple to "verify" my app. I want them to use the OS to enforce user granted permissions and that's it.

As a developer, I understand this sentiment. As an iPhone user however, I don't want the power to shift to developers, because I know developers have financial or other interests that are sometimes at odds with mine.

A large portion of users want the protection that the walled garden affords. If you value openness, then I suggest you use and develop apps for Android.

> because I know developers have financial or other interests that are sometimes at odds with mine.

Like how Apple's interests can be at-odds with your own. If developers have control over your device, you're not empowered as a user.

> A large portion of users want the protection that the walled garden affords

So, give it to them. Our interests are not mutually exclusive, you can make a device with both a walled garden and a developer mode. It's not rocket science, at least when you have 200 billion dollars in R&D cash sitting in your coffers.

The trouble is that if large tech companies are given the opportunity, they will force users to use whatever is best for the company, not for the user. The only way to stand up to large tech companies is with another tech company like Apple.

That's bullshit. The only way to stand up to large tech companies is with regulation, which the United States is pathologically opposed to. Foreign countries have to write their own consumer protection laws because US juggernaut tech companies are so ruthless. Shareholders fear nothing as much as regulatory backlash.

You're at least right about one thing. Large tech companies will always exploit opportunities to limit the user, which is a privilege Apple has abused for too long. It's time for computing to be democratized again, even if we need to drag Apple though the mud to get there.

> That's bullshit. The only way to stand up to large tech companies is with regulation

I don't know if you realize this, but OP and you are saying the same thing, they are just saying it slightly different.

You: To stand up to large company bullying you need to regulate them through the government.

OP: To stand up to large company bullying you, you need another large company who has the pockets and sway to bring change through congress because our government is bought and paid for by corporations.

We're strongman-ing two sides of the same coin. They're arguing that the free market will solve this, whereas I'm arguing that proactive measures are required. Apple's business is designed so that it cannot be disrupted without forcing them to abide by a common set of rules. By leaving those rules undefined, we have clearly not encouraged innovation or disruption. Our only option is to define our consumer rights that we should have instated a long time ago.

One of these is a fairy tail though. The free market doesn’t work like that, and that is a nice way to further empower companies.

Isn't this what Apple is kind of doing though?

It's regulating your iPhone so you don't have to?

I really don't want idealists to mess up the iPhone's stability, performance and security so people can use the minecraft app store or whatever.

Apple can still regulate your iPhone if they want. They just have to do so with the option to disable that regulation, which seems like a fair concession to me. Macs pull this off without a problem, even letting you install another OS if you're dissatisfied with MacOS. Apple just needs to bring that same philosophy to iPhone, and developers won't be mad at them.

A difference between governments and corporations are that you can walk away from a corporation for another one or none at all in the extreme case an alternative doesn’t exist.

You can’t walk away from government regulation because there is ultimately a gun at your back. Governments do not give up power once they’ve received it. Governments change hands who may wield that power differently than when it was imagined to be when first received.

People in European countries have had to learn this the hard way many, many times over and yet still don’t get why other cultures might take a different view on it.

I don't sit on Dow's board and have zero say in whether they decide poisoning the environment where I live is a good idea or not. We are not afforded democracy like owners and board members are.

The government is the one institution in most people's lives that they have a real say in, and probably the only one that affords them democracy. I doubt any of us sit on Apple's board.

The problem is that the Apple and Google duopoly is stifling choice and competition such that we can't realistically walk away from those companies. Market forces haven't solved this issue, and this is where antitrust legislation kicks in.

Well, governments need the power right now. Letting software go unregulated didn't work, full-stop.

How incredibly myopic. And also wrong. It works just fine for users. Not so much for all the greedy, prima donna developers out there. They and governments don’t need this power, they want it.

Just because smoldesu says “Letting software go unregulated didn't work, full-stop” doesn’t make it so. It doesn’t even make sense–you’re the one fighting for deregulation here.

It must be difficult calling me myopic while also treating Apple as a regulator.

Sling all the mud you want, troll. Just because smoldesu doesn’t like the regulation that Apple enacts, doesn’t mean they are not regulating the apps people try to ship.

This doesn't happen on Android. Why would it happen in iOS?

Discoverability and the ease of access that the playstore/appstore provides is enough to pretty much always want to have your app up there.

The main difference is that there are a lot of apps that are simply not allowed in the appstore or that you need to change substantially to comply with apple's rules. For example, Telegram has censored content if you download the app from the appstore given Apple's pornography laws. Other apps that might be used to infringe on copyright are outright not allowed (they're also not allowed on the playstore, but you can install them from the apk or a third party store).

Now, maybe you think these restrictions are appropriate and that's fine... for you. Other people might want the freedom of doing more with their devices that they paid hundreds and hundreds of dollars for without having to resort to extreme measures. The argument Apple uses is bullshit and the EU saw through it.

Doesn't that suggest that Apple, a large tech company, will force users to use whatever is best for the company, not the user?

You realise that's what Apple has been doing for the past 15 years? Force users to do what's best for them, and only them? Anti-competitive practices do not serve customers, they increase prices and prevent innovation.

Not even facebook is big enough to make people go way out of their way and install it. The easy way will always be the popular.

Aren't you advocating Apple forcing users to do what is best for Apple? Users benefit on both sides of this coin in different ways.

the "use android" argument is getting really tiring. as someone who used to be an android user for years and still somewhat keeps up with the ecosystem, ios and most apps written for it (including major apps like twitter) are far more polished than whatever mess google is doing with android (and manufacturers make it even worse). i much prefer having the polished ios experience while being able to sideload and possibly even jailbreak my phone. and then there's imessage too, though we'll see what happens with that after the dma.

and the argument about "giving developers power" simply doesn't hold any water. android openly allows sideloading with the google play store having very similar rules to the app store, and yet i can count the number of major apps that force or even offer a sideloaded version on one hand. the only ones that come to mind are fortnite (removed from google play) and telegram (on play store, but sideloaded version has faster updates and less censorship).

> the "use android" argument is getting really tiring

I fully agree, imagine if MS had made Windows apps on W10 only come from their store. Anybody saying that the solution is "just buy a mac 4head"*, like they love to do with mobile phones, would be laughed out of existence.

*: It's great to have options, and linux should be in here too, but that would be like telling a normal user in this situation (mobile market) to go buy a Pine phone, which for very few would work the way they expect/need it to.

That iOS polish is largely a byproduct of the walled garden approach. Users are incentivised to spend within the ecosystem due to the safety, security and support provided by Apple.

This argument would only make sense if the vast majority of Android spend was outside the Play ecosystem, which it is not. The second part "The safety, security and support provided by Apple." sounds more like a general Apple press release than something related to app polish.

If most people actually choose iOS/iPhones primarily because of the App Store quality/protections/ecosystem then people will continue to choose the App Store regardless if sideloading is possible - after all we just said that's the whole reason most bought the phone in the first place. If on the other hand people are choosing iOS/iPhones for other reasons and you're worried nobody else will use the App Store anymore then I don't really buy "there aren't enough of us so it should be allowed to hold a captive market to support our use case" as a reasonable argument even though I see it quite often on HN.

> the "use android" argument is getting really tiring

Why? Android is a legitimate alternative, one that the majority of the world population uses. You have many makes and models of handsets from which to choose. You want the polished apps with a completely open and free environment. Maybe you should ponder why such apps don't exist for the open and free ecosystems?

Another for your list...all DJI drone software requires sideloading on android.

And to add more the list, Google doesn't allow Adguard or any network-level ad blockers via Google Play. You can only sideload the app.

> A large portion of users want the protection that the walled garden affords.

To state the obvious: if this were true, Apple wouldn't have to force the issue. Apple's app store would be a premium that they would charge users extra for. Getting your apps from 3rd-party stores would be the equivalent of the green bubble.

Don't use 3rd party stores then if that's what you're worried about as a user.

The issue isn't the walled garden.

The issue is the monopolistic price gouging Apple charges for access to the walled garden.

If you took the "policing for developer's short circuiting the 30% cut" out of Apple's approval process, everything in their ecosystem works out fairly nicely.

The core issue is, simply, that Apple price gouges enormously.

What is the problem with a model where the phone manufacturer gives the user power to control privileges given to the developers?

I never really understood this sentiment. How come Android phones are not riddled with bugs then? Or OSX?

It is simply the job of the sandbox and OS security to prevent security/privacy violations.

A problem is that some of their requirements, like the recent one for data collection disclosures, can't be enforced at a technical level

And apple won’t actually look too deeply at your code, that’s just marketing. So, neither is the current model a solution to that.

You're going to continue paying Apple to verify your app.

Either you'll pay Apple directly, or the non-App Store will collect the 30% they have to send to Apple.

I don't want to pay for Apple to "verify" my app.

Add a user, I do.

Developers, and the tech sphere in general, have proven themselves untrustworthy.

This is the bed of greed the tech industry built. Now lay in it.

> Add a user, I do.

For a user, Apple's app store will remain available. Your love for Coca-cola isn't ruined by the existence of Pepsi.

It is, if the Pepsi is poisoned.

Pepsi being poisoned will not affect your Coke.

How are you going to enjoy that Coke while your system is down?

Why is my system down?

Look, it’s not my analogy, but I think you’re all being quite disingenuous.

If I can use alternate stores then some popular apps - Fortnite is an obvious one - will go them exclusively, forcing people to set up and use a store which will probably do less auditing. Those apps will be able to steal more of my data, and some of them might (will) be malicious (“poison”).

Once a malicious app destroys my phone, “the system is down”; I can’t use any apps regardless of where I bought them.

Ransomware is a multi billion dollar business, and alternate stores will be motivated to cut corners. What could go wrong?

The elephant in the room in this discussion is OS level permissions to access files and information on the phone from outside the app.

The app can do whatever it wants, but if I disable it’s access to the internet at a system level it’s not getting access to the internet.

Even desktop OSes work like this. Just because I install a piece of software on my laptop does not mean that it gets root access.

> Those apps will be able to steal more of my data, and some of them might (will) be malicious (“poison”).

This seems a bit hyperbolic. I personally have not had this problem on my laptop (a Mac) despite being able to sideload apps, and it likely being a much juicier target.

Apple in fact uses and sells your data for the same purposes it is "protecting you" from when other developers do it.

You can yell about Zucks adtech empire all you like, but Apple launched their competitor at the same time they denied other apps.

Google is now moving the same direction as well.

Your phone OS vendor controlling which software distribution platform is mandatory is not meaningfully, "security".

>Apple in fact uses and sells your data for the same purposes it is "protecting you" from when other developers do it.

I don’t believe this is true, can you cite a source? The recent buzz about ‘targeted ads’ was actually about adds on their own App Store, no third party data sharing or sale was involved, so I believe you are mistaken.

By that definition, Google doesn't share your data either. But they do, by monetizing it in the form of targeted ads. Both Apple and Google try to gussy it up with 'anonymous' labels, but the business of tracking and monetizing your habits is shared by both.

It’s still not the same as selling your data to third parties, with all the many very considerable additional privacy and accountability problems that entails. It’s also not using your data to provision ads on third party sites and apps. I’ve seen people claim Apple does both of those things here before, and the fact is they don’t.

What they are just starting to do is no different from Amazon using your past purchases to place ads on their own site. I have no problem with that either.

If your going to criticise them and think what they are doing is wrong, fine. That’s fair, but could people at least get what they're complaining about factually correct.

Apple has an ad network, which has special privileges on iOS. Are you saying they don't provision ads on their ad network based on all the special access they have? They'd be kind of crazy not to, they've secured themselves a very valuable information monopoly here, and it's pretty obvious why...

They don’t have an ad network in any meaningful sense, because there’s no distribution network for their ads. The ad targeting everyone is talking about is only for ads for apps on the App Store. Not in third party apps or web sites and such. That’s why I compared it to Amazon targeting ads in their own store.

> >To help protect against unsafe apps, Apple is discussing the idea of mandating certain security requirements even if software is distributed outside its store.

Are they going to keep on giving their own apps entitlements they deny to everyone else? (Or even, allow to others, but very selectively.) Or is the EU going to crack down on that as well? I hope.

Sounds like it'll be a bit like on Mac with that whole notarization rigmarole.. But on Mac you can bypass it by jumping through some hoops. I guess on iOS you won't be able to until the EU catches up and forbids that too.

I'd actually consider iOS again if it were more open so I think this is a really good thing.

The EU is mandating sideloading, it's not mandating Apple do it for free. Until now, developers have been licensing Apple's intellectual property in a bundle through the Developer Program License Agreement. For anyone that goes through the sideloading route, they can expect to enter into a different contractual agreement with Apple to license their technology.

Otherwise they're building a web app, which they've always been able to do!

What a sham, though. Developers already pay for Apple's IP

- When they pay $99/year for their developer license

- When they pay royalties on every payment that gets processed

- When they buy and promote Apple hardware and software

People simply want to remove the payment processing one. If Apple really needs more money to build their amazing intellectual property, they have plenty of ways to bill developers for services rendered. Their current system is undeniably exploitative, and the EU won't stop until that exploitation is alleviated. Apple will stop at nothing to defend their control, but will ultimately be forced to abide by Europe's terms. They're not defying small-fry court orders in the Netherlands anymore.

For me as a user it's not about the payment thing at all. It's about being able to do with my device what I want without the manufacturer having to approve it first.

There's an intersection because Apple mandates that all apps use their payment service to process any payment.

You're exactly the person the top of thread person is talking about. When Apple was forced to allow 3rd party payment processors they still charged developers a 27% commission on the sale of digital goods.

Sounds like they should prepare for another EU interjection then.

What if, because of the new regulations, a new ecosystem of open-source iOS SDKs pops up? Developers who use those would not have to pay Apple at all, since they are not using any of Apple's IP.

It's very likely, they've tried playing the same games with other jurisdictions, "sure, you can use your own payment processor, and still pay us 27%", but it's very unlikely those tricks will hold up to further legal actions.

Fighting monopolies is hard, but the penalties scale up the more games these companies play. They know it too, but all of the **holes running these companies are worried about is cashing out their bonuses and retiring before the regulations finally get things to where they should be.

Surely the people running Apple could have retired a long time ago.

These laws don't expropriate Apple's intellectual property. Apple will always be able to license it for something.

They can charge whatever they want for the phone. They can't levy monopoly fees on every successive purchase.

I certainly understand why developers would prefer that Apple have that business model, but that's not the one they chose for the iPhone. And these laws don't prohibit it.

Yes it was, they later changed their stance. In the announcement for iPhone, Jobs on stage explicitly stated that all you need to develop an app was html and modern javascript with API's into the phone hardware. And they would basically just be a PWA that would keep the app updated automatically as soon as the developer makes a change, all while keeping the iPhone "reliable and secure." In fact, he was bragging about not having a store "rather than having to go through this complex update process" as a dig at the Google play store.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QvQ9JNm_qWc

And then everyone realized web apps sucked and demanded that Apple release an SDK, which they did, and the rest is history.

Early phones ran on incredibly limited hardware and genuinely needed native applications just to do simple things.

We've had 15 years of hardware and browser optimization, Moore's law, and development when it comes to mobile hardware.

Web apps run just fine now. Hell, many native apps are just web apps via things React Native or webviews.

That's incorrect. Enforcement has failed to handle it, but Apple's app store model is a violation of antitrust law, in the US, the EU, and elsewhere. Many of the actions you are seeing in the news about it are regulatory mandates, based on the fact that Apple's business model isn't legal.

Oh okay, so the law has that loophole. Too bad, I thought the EU was serious about it.

It's no surprise that Apple will comply as maliciously as they possibly can.

If it's bad enough, they'll switch back to using Apple's store, and it'll be a wash; but, we won't know until competition exists

It's also huge fun to deal with the regulations and tax systems of 175 countries.

The number 1 thing they are paying for by a mile is reach. Not any particular service offering. Your listing the app store can be nearly as important as your SEO ranking of moreso depending on your business. It's why Google can still charge pretty hefty fees despite not locking users in nor doing all that much for app quality. If you're not in the Play Store, users won't find you.

They won't, because anyone who starts an alternative app store will provide everything necessary for a small fee. The likes of Epic, Microsoft, Amazon, etc are more than capable.

Yes and you'll still have to pay Apple a 27% commission on digital goods sold even when it's distributed through the Epic store. This is what the parent is talking about not understanding what you're paying for.

Hitching your "I don't want to pay the 30% commission" wagon to "Allowing 3rd party app stores and payment processors" is doomed to fail.

This has literally already happened https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2022/02/apple-shocks-ios...

But requiring developers to pay Apple in order to get on the iPhone isn't going to fly with the new EU law... right?

I don't own an iPhone, but if this is the case then the end result is going to be hilarious. Apple will eventually get a court order to prevent software from a third party store being installed on their devices. Either it will enable copyright infringement or violate some other IP restriction.

So this will wind up being a worst of all worlds.

What's the precedent for that? Windows, MacOS, Android and Linux have all allowed the user to indiscriminately install software, but I've never heard of legislation that tried to reverse that.

I definitely agree it's going to be the worst of all worlds. The current model was the most efficient one for Apple and developers. There will be additional costs for everyone involved (great for lawyers and accountants though). The current model was a virtuous cycle that benefited Apple, developers, and users. High trust from users made them amenable to spending money on software, grew the Apple developer ecosystem, and unleashed a wave of innovation which spawned industries since 2008. Importantly, all developers got standard terms which created a level playing field. I suspect we're moving into a world where large developers (Spotify/Netflix/Microsoft) will have much more negotiating leverage than a small developer. But that is the 'business as usual' world, which makes this a reversion to the mean.

> Importantly, all developers got standard terms which created a level playing field.

Lmao, you must have missed the news about Microsoft, Amazon, Netflix and another few dozen Fortune 500 companies negotiating with Apple under the table. They already do bend the rules for sufficiently large companies, they just won't budge if you're someone that threatens them.

What the Epic v. Apple antitrust trial showed was that no one actually got better terms than anyone else. If you have evidence of Microsoft, Amazon, or Netflix getting terms that aren't available to anyone else, please link them.

That was only true after Apple adjusted their rules to expand Netflix's deal (allowing external processors in certain situations) to the rest of the store. There was a time when it was an exclusive, under-the-table deal with Netflix. It's not hard to believe when you hear about the private entitlements notable developers like Uber and Google get.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com