Hacker News Reader

Comment by lolinder | Hacker News Reader

Which is also a shame, because I believe that consumers should have the right to choose a locked-down ecosystem if that's what they want.

It's not perfect, but we've had a pretty good thing going in the mobile phone space from a consumer perspective:

There's an option that's extremely intuitive, tightly integrated, and secure, at the necessary expense of being locked down. A walled garden in the best sense—a curated environment that's designed to provide a specific experience and keep out things that aren't welcome.

Then there's the option that works okay-but-not-perfectly out of the box but really shines for power users. That system provides all the flexibility you could want (especially when you get into custom ROMs) at the necessary expense of placing a higher maintenance burden on the user.

These efforts to dismantle this balance don't seem at all designed to help consumers—they're exclusively focused on the needs of other, typically large companies, and I strongly suspect that the fallout is going to hurt consumers quite a lot.

View on HN

It will help customers though. It helps no one but Apple that Apple collects a 30% tax on everything with no real way of cutting them out. It helps no one that I can’t buy kindle books on my iPhone, or subscribe to certain streaming services.

But this focus on the customer is irrelevant to whether they’re being anti-competitive. Apple actions in creating a walled garden are detrimental to their direct competitors (Spotify, Netflix, epic games) by either entirely locking them out or forcing them to compete with unfair structural barriers (nobody’s taking 30% of Apple Music subcsriber revenue).

> But this focus on the customer is irrelevant to whether they’re being anti-competitive.

Yes, this is exactly my point. Consumers are going to get a worse experience so companies besides Apple can make more money.

That may or may not be a good thing—all I'm saying is consumers will get hurt.

> Consumers are going to get a worse experience so companies besides Apple can make more money.

Do you really believe that taxes just hurts company profits and doesn't hurt products used by the people?

I believe that the 30% fee does not in itself hurt the iPhone experience enough to justify the kinds of actions that are being taken to dismantle other aspects of the iOS ecosystem, and the net result will be harm to consumers.

Apple's odd choices for enforcement of the fee (like Patreon) do create a problem for many kinds of apps. I'm just hesitant to dismantle something that mostly works for most people without a very clear idea of what it is we'll end up with.

Consumers who wish to stay entirely within apple’s app store can continue doing just that. There’s no change for them.

See my reply to another thread where someone made a similar claim: that's simply not going to be possible.

The endgame here from the perspective of the companies that are pushing for this is to arrive at a similar place to where we are with streaming services: they each want their own store where they will distribute their own apps without a middleman. That's great for the companies, but choosing to stay exclusively in the Apple ecosystem will necessarily be choosing to not use any apps from Epic, Meta, Adobe, Amazon, and whoever else thinks they're big enough to justify their own store.

It's going to be a disaster for app consumers on the same scale as unbundling Netflix was for streaming.

This horrible scenario you’re describing is the World Wide Web: each company free to sell their software on their website directly to consumers.

This is the reality on Apple’s own macOS.

This is a pretty weak boogeyman.

You've been enjoying having to juggle five streaming services to access all the content that was previously on one?

Remember that I choose Android for the flexibility. I like the wild west of the WWW. I'm here defending the interests of a group that isn't well represented on HN: Apple users who actually like having exactly one App Store that they can count on to look out for them and moderate what apps can and can't do.

We already have Wild West platforms. For a while we had one that was better regulated, and people flocked to it. Large companies are lobbying government to dismantle that platform for their own selfish interests, and you're cheering it on rather than just picking the ecosystem that already provides what you want.

See my other comment. Streaming services are not comparable; games purchased on one store do not leave your library the way shows leave streaming services. And there’s no “juggling”, none of these have ongoing costs.

If people can juggle getting weather in one app, videos in another, and banking in a third, they can “juggle” the hassle of a one time search to find where to purchase the game.

The streaming problem doesn’t disappear when your streaming services are served to you via the App Store

No, but in short order every company of any size will have its own app store which will be the way all their customers have to download their apps, same as every media company has its own streaming platform.

So when you say “every company of any size” you actually mean “a small handful of the largest companies”, right?

Because I’m happy to identify 100 media companies for every 1 that you identify that offers their content exclusively on their own streaming platform

You are describing websites and the state of desktop computing.

I already replied to that argument above and am not interested in going in circles any further.

"There’s no change for them."

They would fundamentally have to change how app stores work with Apple. Yes, things will change for everyone.

> should have the right to choose a locked-down ecosystem if that's what they want

You will continue to have that right.

Simply don't install other app stores.

What you won't be able to do is force other people to do what you want them to do, with their iPhones.

It has nothing to do with you choosing what you want to do with your own phone.

Instead, you want to force restrictions onto other people's phones.

> this balance don't seem at all designed to help consumers

It's designed to give those who want it, the ability to control all phones that they own.

Few people would have a problem with you being given the option to lock down your phone if that's what you want.

> Simply don't install other app stores.

This is what everyone says, but we know that's not how it will work. Epic doesn't want their own store because they want to put their stuff in both places—Epic wants their own store because they want to bypass Apple and Google entirely.

We're going to see a proliferation of app stores the way we've seen a proliferation of streaming platforms, with apps only being available in the Epic Store or the Apple Store or the Amazon Store or the Meta Store, and it's not going to be fun for anyone to navigate.

> Epic wants their own store because they want to bypass Apple and Google entirely.

Then don't install the Epic App store. Thats your right.

If you are still upset then that means that yes this is about forcing other people and other companies to do what they want with their store and their phones.

If thats your opinion, fine. Just say that out loud. Don't hide behind "Well, people should be able to choose what they want!" Type arguments.

Just explicitly say that you don't care about consumer choice or a companies choice to make their own app store, and leave it at that.

And don't install the Meta store or the Adobe store or the Amazon store or whatever. That's a lot of apps that won't be accessible within the Apple ecosystem that currently are.

> Just explicitly say that you don't care about consumer choice or a companies choice to make their own app store, and leave it at that.

I very much do care about consumer choice. As a consumer, I chose Android because it has the flexibility to allow me to install what I want from where I want. As a consumer, my wife chose iOS because it currently offers a tightly integrated experience that doesn't get in her way.

The EU and many on HN are trying to dismantle the experience that my wife chose to make it more like Android. That's a net loss in consumer choice directly caused by lobbying on the part of already-wealthy businesses who try to make it sound like the choices of billions of Apple users don't count so that they can justify their push to make more money themselves.

> And don't install the Meta store or the Adobe store or the Amazon store or whatever.

Correct, yes. That is the same advice that you are trying to tell other people. "if you don't like it, just go buy something else", basically.

So yes, take your own advice and only install the app store that you prefer.

If that doesn't satisfy you, then you would have to admit that none of this is about choice, instead it would be about you wanting to force companies or other users to do what you want in your own way.

You can't have this both ways here. Every single time you throw around arguments like "go buy a different thing", that same exact line of thinking can be thrown back at you, to tell you to just not install the app stores that you don't like.

Pick one. This argument either is bad, or it can be thrown back at you when you use it. You can't use that argument and then run away when its thrown back at you.

> As a consumer, my wife chose iOS because it currently offers a tightly integrated experience that doesn't get in her way.

They can still have that. Just don't install those other app stores. Thats your advice that you throw around. So follow it.

One App Store per application, almost like if they would sell software straight from their website. What a horrible scenario.

Each with their own rules specially crafted to favor their own use cases, with no third party distributor to intervene on behalf of the consumer.

You may approve of that change, but you can't deny it's a change for the worse for the majority of Apple users who don't care about the flexibility but were happy to have an app store whose interests were more or less aligned with their own.

We already have third parties meant to intervene on behalf of the customers: the government.

The FTC and consumer protection agencies are elected by people (even if indirectly).

Apple does not act in the best interest of its customers. Not when those interests are in conflict with it’s own.

> Not when those interests are in conflict with it’s own.

Which they very rarely have been for the majority of Apple users. There's a very small contingent of Apple users who spend time on HN who feel differently, but for most Apple users the experience that Apple offers is far and away better than that of any other tech company precisely because Apple's interests align with their own so well.

I'm just flummoxed why that small contingent of Apple users on HN gets behind the large companies' efforts to dismantle the ecosystem rather than just picking the other ecosystem that already offers the flexibility they want. It's inconsiderate of the majority of people who actually like what Apple is offering.

> the experience that Apple offers is far and away better than that of any other tech company

Steam is a way better product than the appstore. Appstore is full of toxic games with gambling monetization and in app purchases, steam is full of games you buy upfront and dlc is clearly labeled with dollar signs in the app store instead of premium gems etc.

I blame the apple appstore for creating that toxic ecosystem that made phonegames suck so hard. If there were alternatives things would be so much better, like you have in pc gaming. Steam launching game stores in the phones would be a massive win for everyone.

> I blame the apple appstore for creating that toxic ecosystem that made phonegames suck so hard. If there were alternatives things would be so much better, like you have in pc gaming.

Interesting. I blame the medium [1] and the size of the audience [2]. I guess we'll see who is right, but either way I'm unconvinced a better phone gaming experience is worth letting Meta create its own app store that allows privacy shenanigans that Apple has successfully banned.

[1] Smartphones are attention-monopolizing devices by their very nature in a way that a tower PC just isn't.

[2] The majority of games on a platform will appeal to the lowest common denominator, and since ~everyone has a smartphone the lowest common denominator is very low.

> is worth letting Meta create its own app store that allows privacy shenanigans that Apple has successfully banned

The enemy of my enemy is not my friend. If Meta is doing impinging on people's privacy we need to make it illegal, not let it be used by Apple as a selling feature for their anti-competitive practices.

Apple interests do not align. They continue to allow blatantly predatory “games” which use the mechanics and terminology of gambling to take advantage of people. With one side of their mouth they talk about the evils of tracking and advertising and with the other they tell their investors about their growing ad platform.

I am equally flummoxed why others defend the same clearly anti-competitive behaviour. Voting with our feet is no substitute for voting with our votes.

And yet people just use steam and they’re fine.

No, people use Steam and also have to install the Ubisoft launcher, the Epic store, the Paradox launcher, the EA store...

PC gaming is a good example of why the complaints about the 30% tax are overblown, but it's also a terrific example of what happens to consumers when a platform isn't able to vertically control every aspect of the distribution experience. It's not great.

I like it. I vote with my wallet and don't buy things that aren't on Steam, because I don't care enough about yet another store. Sometimes I do care enough about it, and I'll buy things from GOG, which is just the way I want it.

I want to support the companies I want to support, not the companies I'm being forced to support because I bought a piece of hardware from them.

You buy it on steam though. A tiny fraction of titles are not available on steam.

I would 1000% prefer the experience of steam over the App Store. Heck I would prefer the Epic Game Store.

He will lose the sense of security from interacting with other iPhone users which Apple’s walled garden currently provides. The existence of third party appstores on iOS mean I can no longer be sure that an app on an another person iPhone is safe. There’s 100 percent going to be a zero day delivered through these third party Appstores which will spread to iOS devices without any third party AppStore’s installed.

This whole situation seems Kafkaesque. Apple sold billions of iOS devices because party because of the experience they were offering. People like me sort that experience out. Now people saying are that no, that experience was anti consumer.

There’s less choice in the mobile smart phone space because of this. I have no idea why people want iOS to be Android when there’s already Android. And apparently Google’s Android model isn’t good enough either.

You are VASTLY overestimating how strong the App Store vetting process is. The majority of the security comes from strong sandboxing in the OS, which also applies to apps installed through third-party stores (or Xcode, etc)

> Simply don't install other app stores.

This won’t be an option for many people. Once there’s an Adobe App Store you’re going to have to get on board with their bullshit to use the software. Look at the Windows game stores situation.

> Adobe App Store

You’re describing a website with a purchase button, the exact situation we have on all non-mobile devices.

> Look at the Windows game stores situation.

Yes and look at their competition: GoG, Steam, Humble Bundle, Epic Games, Origin, etc. Don’t like Windows game stores, no problem just use a competitor.

You now have different terms of service for these stores, including rules about data collection. Software will be exclusively available on these stores, so it’s not like you’ll actually have a choice about whether to use a given store.

Just like those “competitive” windows game stores.

The horror of having different companies allowed to set their own rules for how they interact with people. This scenario is how websites and the web as a whole work, it’s how macOS and windows work.

And if you have concerns about privacy or shady business practices (I do too) remember that Facebook, TikTok, and Twitter are allowed on the App Store and get preferential treatment.

The third party I want protecting me from sharing practices isn’t Apple (who is whole unaccountable) it’s the government.

> GoG, Steam, Humble Bundle, Epic Games, Origin, etc. Don’t like Windows game stores, no problem just use a competitor.

This is literally their point. Windows gaming is a convoluted mess of stores that you have to juggle, a far cry from the experience Apple has been trying to offer to consumers.

Having to click, once, between different stores if you really care about a game is not some convoluted process.

And analogies to streaming services don’t hold up for a few reasons:

1. There’s no ongoing cost to have an account at the each, purchases are one time.

2. Games do not leave services the way shows leave streaming sites.

> Games do not leave services the way shows leave streaming sites

This already isn’t accurate, and it’s getting less so all the time.

I guess I’d like to see some examples of games being pulled from stores and also from the libraries of paid customers.

It’s not convoluted. There’s just multiple stores. You can get 99.9% of the games you want on steam.

> This won’t be an option for many people.

Yes it will be.

Do what you do with every other product. Don't install it if you don't like it.

But let other people decide what they want to do with their own phones.

Exactly, you should let other people decide what they do with their phones. The majority of Apple users chose phones for the tightly curated, easy to navigate Apple ecosystem. You don't have a right to upend that by forcing Apple to change the product they bought to more closely resemble a product that's already on the market.

If you want an open ecosystem get an Android phone already, don't try to dictate what other people are allowed to buy.

(Writing as a happy Android user who chose it for F-Droid!)

It seems you're saying that since there's a choice on one level (phone architecture, Android vs. iOS), it doesn't matter if choice is denied on all other levels. Your reasoning seems to be that if anyone is unhappy with being prevented from doing something with their phone, they can resolve it by buying a different phone.

This notion of freedom is compelling in its elegance, but it's not how freedom is generally understood in contexts where most people have pre-existing commitments and investments which constrain their exercise of a particular high-level choice.

For example while it's true that people who live in an authoritarian state generally do have the ability to leave, we don't consider that option to absolve the authoritarian state of its responsibility to grant rights to its citizens. The reason is that it's very hard for most people to switch countries: it requires learning a new language, re-buying all the possessions and property that can't be relocated, and losing all the connections and efficiencies people depend on to make their lives work well.

Because of the high switching cost, people who had the misfortune to settle in a state which turned authoritarian are likely to submit to conditions which they don't actually agree with or like. We don't consider such people to be free, despite the nominal first-order freedom of choice they do have.

> Exactly, you should let other people decide what they do with their phones.

So then people who want to install whatever app store on their iPhone should be allowed to do so. And those who disagree can not do that.

> The majority of Apple users chose phones for the tightly curated, easy to navigate Apple ecosystem

Once again. If you want that, few people would be opposed to a "lock down" button that turns your phone into an "apple ecosystem only" phone.

But other people should be able to install whatever they want and their own iPhone.

> If you want an open ecosystem get an Android phone already,

Or, instead of that, people should be allowed to do whatever they want with their phones, including their own iPhones.

You can have your lockdown button if you want, and most governments would be fine with that. But other people should be allowed to do what they want with their own iPhone, including installing other app stores.

Thats not going to satify you, because what you actually want to do is control other people's iPhones.

I don't want to control your phone. Lock it down, all you want. Apple can even include a helpful lockdown feature and it would be with everyone else.

Just let other people do what they want with their own iPhones.

> don't try to dictate what other people are allowed to buy.

You would be the one dictating what other people do with their phones. I am perfectly fine with you having a locked down iPhone as long as it is possible for other people, who are not you, to have a not locked down iPhone.

See the difference?

> What you won't be able to do is force other people to do what you want them to do, with their iPhones.

A bit of a nit, but what they won't be able to do is use their market power to lock competitors out or extract monopolistic taxes for access to their large segment of the mobile market. It has nothing to do with consumers per se - we could be back here in 3 years because all of the app stores have formed a cartel to decide the vig for apps, same way Amazon and Apple did for e-books.

Amazon and Apple did not decide such a thing. Apple and the publishers had worked out an agreement to raise the price of ebooks to be closer to that of new releases to counter the monopolistic cheap-to-the-point-of-failing-authors approach from Amazon.

The US Government got involved in that agreement and declared it illegal because it hurt Amazon's bottom line…and the publishing industry is in a much worse situation with Amazon controlling even more of the income than ever, while now diverting revenue to shitty LLM-publishers and away from humans who try to write things that people want to read.

Basically, that decision by the government was wrong, and we’re all suffering for it. Upcoming decisions and the DMA are different, but they are making many of the same mistakes as the US Government did with the publishing agreement, in that these intervention will:

- reduce overall security on devices that must be more secure than personal computers because they often act as payment devices, personal IDs, and other matters (this is not guaranteed, but many of the moves being advocated are going to lead to bad actors getting to pretend that they are equivalent to the operating system, or provide access to Secure Enclave data in ways that encourage large criminal and nation state attacks on the ecosystem)

- reduce overall payment security and convenience for real people (you think that cancelling a NYT subscription is hard, let Tim Sweeney design a payment flow and it will take a personal visit to Epic to cancel a subscription, and even then it will take more time than it should)

Everyone focuses on the 30%. It should be lower; there should be wider access and less gatekeeping‡. But if you want it to be zero, start taking on the PlayStation, Xbox, and Nintendo Switch monopolies, too as they charge as much and sometimes more.

‡ I think that Apple (and probably Google) need to get over their American prudishness. This would require having better categorization and parental controls that could be enabled by device owners and even providing applications ways of applying parental controls (let Tumblr bring its adult-oriented content back, but enable the Tumblr app to apply parental controls via an API). There are other changes that I would like to see, but absolutely none of them involve letting Tim Sweeney / Epic get involved in taking payment details, because I trust him far less than I trust Tim Cook / Apple (or even Google).

> Apple and the publishers had worked out an agreement to raise the price of ebooks to be closer to that of new releases to counter the monopolistic cheap-to-the-point-of-failing-authors approach from Amazon.

Thats called anti-competive behavior to raise prices.

Price dumping isn't a thing. Its basically not illegal, and is instead something that the US government, and its population, want to encourage.

I am sure that there are some outdated economics textbooks that put out this hypothetical of the extremely rare "bad kind" of price dumping, and one or 2 long irrelevant court cases. But these days, its basically not a bad thing.

Complaints about price dumping are almost never done in good faith. Instead, they are done by monopolistic entities that want to screw over customers by illegally coordinating price increases.

> Basically, that decision by the government was wrong, and we’re all suffering for it.

I am going to say that the monopolistic group of sellers who were trying to raise prices was wrong. And the law supports me.

> But if you want it to be zero, start taking on the PlayStation, Xbox, and Nintendo Switch monopolies, too as they charge as much and sometimes more.

Or, instead of that, we can use the government to force it to be zero in whatever ways that we can, even if we don't effect other markets.

Those other markets, while maybe deserving of some scrutiny, are smaller than the smartphone market. Therefore, it is perfectly reasonable to care about the much larger and more important market, and to make those fees 0.

> letting Tim Sweeney / Epic get involved in taking payment details, because I trust him far less than I trust Tim Cook / Apple

Then use your consumer rights to not install the epic app store. And leave other people's phone's alone.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com