9 ms·

I think it's important to look at the broader issue: "App stores" are walled gardens, policed by corporations and are the opposite of freedom. The web is open

I think it's important to look at the broader issue: "App stores" are walled gardens, policed by corporations and are the opposite of freedom. The web is open and free. We made a deal with the devil when we collectively decided to write and use apps and not the web. This is just one symptom.

avip 8y ago
Alas, a walled garden is not the opposite of freedom. Indeed, in many places, living in a walled garden will make you factually freeer than your fellows outside.
- fatbird 8y ago
  This is an under-represented viewpoint. The freedom we constantly discuss in terms of app stores is freedom of possibility, but it comes at a cost in time and effort that reduces one's material freedom.
- Dotnaught 8y ago
  Your argument misrepresents the metaphor. It's the wall that's the barrier to freedom, not what goes on within.
  - avip 8y ago
    A wall can provide much freedom, depending on what’s outside. Freedom is a complicated term.
    - Dotnaught 8y ago
      Freedom is slavery; ignorance is strength. You're constructing a scenario to justify an abstract argument. The wall is the only salient feature in the walled garden metaphor. There's no terror lurking outside. If you mean to imply that Apple's oversight has some advantages, such as security, that's a separate issue. In the context of Apple's app store rules, the wall refers to Apple's rules. The absence of those rules does not reduce your freedom as a developer; you're can still abide by them without Apple requiring your to do so. But you have more choice without the rules.
      - deleted 8y ago
        [deleted]
  - mattkevan 8y ago
    Freedom without boundaries and trust isn’t freedom but anarchy. A game is only a game if all the players have a shared set of rules and can trust each other to stay within them. As soon as someone breaks the rules the game is over, and the freedom provided is lost.
    - ilikehurdles 8y ago
      Both of these points are wrong.
      - mattkevan 8y ago
        Thanks for the constructive criticism.
- wool_gather 8y ago
  Particularly in this case we should note that while there may be lost freedom for some developers, there is an increase in freedom for some users. They gain the freedom to explore the wares available in the app market without spending (as much) time worrying about bad actors.
- lvs 8y ago
  I think you're extending an analogy to a philosophical place it doesn't go: from a "walled garden" to "the rule of law in a free society." There are a variety of features of the latter that are not inherent in the former. For example, justice in a free society should not be arbitrary and capricious. It should be fair and equal, and applied with discretion. A society where minor rules are difficult to understand but are enforced to the maximum extent is a tyranny.
- richev 8y ago
  Doesn't it depend on the size of the garden, and the diversity within?
izacus 8y ago
You can of course still write software outside app stores and provide best of both. Not every computer in this world is a walled garden.
- i_am_nomad 8y ago
  You are right, and not just technically. But the problem with walled gardens is that they're safe and easy for people unable to navigate the world outside of them. Most people are unable or unwilling to sideload apps onto their devices, and that is not their fault. So when the walled garden becomes too unfree and tyrannical, the companies maintaining those gardens are to blame.
  - foxX 8y ago
    > and that is not their fault Except for some corporate environment, I don't see how it's not their fault. It's easier than ever to make an informed decision before using one's wallet and it's every living, functioning human's duty to improve, grow and learn. Totally tired of apps that are nothing else than options-less and incontrolable browsers.
    - i_am_nomad 8y ago
      You make a valuable point about personal responsibility that I agree with, so I may have to reconsider my original position. (I upvoted you.) But, I would also point out that while there is much more available information to make such decisions, that info is much less comprehensible to the average consumer, who is almost certainly much less savvy about technology than you are.
      - foxX 8y ago
        Also vendors doing their best with astroturfing and obfuscating their works. I wonder why.
sambeau 8y ago
Developers only have themselves to blame. We allowed our technology to be used to spam, cheat and steal from our non-tech family and friends. We made tools that helped the bad-guys and did very little when our non-tech family and friends threw their hands up in confusion and cried for help. We sighed. We called them idiots and rolled our eyes. We now have to live with a bunch mostly sensible though occasionally over-sensitive rules to make sure we don't try to trick and cheat our non-tech brethren. We of course still have plenty of other super-techy places we can play—: Linux, Raspberry Pies, Embedded Devices, the whole of server-side internet. Yet we still moan because someone has walled a bit of it off to protect ordinary people from charlatans. Boo-hoo.
- TAForObvReasons 8y ago
  You were downvoted but this is spot-on, and you see this debate happening everywhere in tech. The entire GDPR was rooted in the (correct) observation that the tech sector could not self-regulate, that actual laws with nontrivial punishment were required to force tech companies to stop shady behaviors. Even YC isn't clean in this regard. They funded a startup called InstallMonetizer that promulgated the drive-by installer problem: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5092711 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5092711 . There's a great quote from that post: > You can make a lot of money doing all kinds of popular things -- pimping women, selling drugs, selling 'likes' on facebook, selling botnets that create fake clicks on advertisers, ponzi schemes, etc. Some are illegal, some are just barely legal, but they are all damaging to someone. This line of business is known as 'scummy' and InstallMonetizer is plain 'scummy'. Yes we have to blame those who perpetrate the behavior, but we also have to blame ourselves for not being more aggressive in sounding the alarm. For many influential people who could have put a stop to this, the Upton Sinclair quote applies: > It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.
  - amelius 8y ago
    The problem is that either policing is not a role for a company, or there should be laws that protect both the developer and the user, like in a normal market. Governments are partly to blame here, for not addressing platform economies. But some are working on it [1]. [1] http://ec.europa.eu/information_society/newsroom/image/document/2016-7/uclouvain_et_universit_saint_louis_14044.pdf http://ec.europa.eu/information_society/newsroom/image/docum...
sonnyblarney 8y ago
"We made a deal with the devil when we collectively decided to write and use apps and not the web." No - apps are fine. Even app stores are fine. It's the fact that you can't distribute an app outside an app store ... this is a problem. So basically Apple is the problem, everyone else is fine.
- scarface74 8y ago
  It’s only a “problem” for a relatively few techies. Most people would be better served by a wall gardened. Seeing the mess that the average consumer makes on thier Windows computers is evidence. My mom would never have to worry about getting malware because she searched for a printer driver if she had an iPad. Heck, she wouldn’t have had to worry about a printer driver at all. And if you want to see what happens on mobile when you have an App Store with an out clause like on Android for the common consumer, look no further than what happened with Fortnight.
  - sonnyblarney 8y ago
    I totally disagree and the evidence is Android. A) Android doesn't have some vast and ugly problem with malfeasance. B) It's entirely possible to educate customers that if they go outside of respected shops - they run the risk of problems. C) The 'Windows' analogy doesn't really hold because mobile OS APIs are totally locked down. Any app installed on Windows/Mac can effectively wipe out your machine. It's a huge risk. An android app has very limited API access, moreover, the user has to grant explicit rights. Fortnight is not a bad example of anything really. There's no evidence that people really benefit from fully walled garden. Moreover, there's evidence that they can't get the apps and functionality they need, because there are quite a number of apps that simply cannot be easily developed and deployed in iPhone - so many corporate and B2B apps. It's possible in only limited scenarios. The 'security' issue is not real. It's a tactic by Apple to control the market and that's mostly it.
    - scarface74 8y ago
      A) Android doesn't have some vast and ugly problem with malfeasance. https://drfone.wondershare.com/android-tips/top-android-virues-list.html https://drfone.wondershare.com/android-tips/top-android-viru... It's entirely possible to educate customers that if they go outside of respected shops - they run the risk of problems. People have been saying the same thing about PCs since the 80s. How has that worked out? An android app has very limited API access, moreover, the user has to grant explicit rights. Like “Access File System”,”read phone state”, etc.? Fortnite isn’t a good example of anything. https://www.cnet.com/news/just-as-critics-feared-fortnite-for-android-came-with-an-epic-security-risk/ https://www.cnet.com/news/just-as-critics-feared-fortnite-fo... There's no evidence that people really benefit from fully walled garden. Except that you never hear about the malware on iOS that is able to be installed on Android devices. There's no evidence that people really benefit from fully walled garden. There is plenty of B2B software on iOS, a large multinational company I use to work for distributed all types of apps for their employees that never went through the App Store. Another company I worked for distributed B2B software for other customers. Moreover, there's evidence that they can't get the apps and functionality they need, What apps does the general non techie consumer “need” or “want” that they can’t get on iOS.
jillesvangurp 8y ago
There's that and the notion that as a distribution mechanism app stores are hopelessly ineffective unless you happen to have bribed your way into being featured or listed in their top whatever (at great expense). (Mobile) web is where the action is these days. The conversion from there to app installs is typically beyond terrible. It just doesn't matter how good your app is. The vast majority of your web users will never see your app or care to see it. A lot of the stuff that currently requires native, you might be able to pull off via wasm instead. In any case, most users simply don't bother with installing apps for anything except a handful of things they really need. You are simply not the center of their universe. So, focus on mobile web. Make it a progressive mobile web app and you have Android covered as well. And whatever else people might use these days (Ipads, Amazon kindles, chrome books, windows ARM, etc.). Add a bit of responsive design and it works on desktops as well. If successful, you can still package your web app as a native app. Lots of other web developers do this. If Apple ever crippled their embedded browser, it would break most of the apps in their store.
- lifty 8y ago
  You might be right but that doesn't reflect my own experience. I tend prefer native applications when using my mobile phone and I only use the browser for consuming text content. When it comes to more interactive experiences like maps, booking tickets, ordering food, social media etc. I definitely prefer native applications.
amelius 8y ago
Yes, it's one thing if the government regulates a market, yet another if a company regulates it ...

avip 8y ago

Alas, a walled garden is not the opposite of freedom. Indeed, in many places, living in a walled garden will make you factually freeer than your fellows outside.

fatbird 8y ago
This is an under-represented viewpoint. The freedom we constantly discuss in terms of app stores is freedom of possibility, but it comes at a cost in time and effort that reduces one's material freedom.
Dotnaught 8y ago
Your argument misrepresents the metaphor. It's the wall that's the barrier to freedom, not what goes on within.
- avip 8y ago
  A wall can provide much freedom, depending on what’s outside. Freedom is a complicated term.
  - Dotnaught 8y ago
    Freedom is slavery; ignorance is strength. You're constructing a scenario to justify an abstract argument. The wall is the only salient feature in the walled garden metaphor. There's no terror lurking outside. If you mean to imply that Apple's oversight has some advantages, such as security, that's a separate issue. In the context of Apple's app store rules, the wall refers to Apple's rules. The absence of those rules does not reduce your freedom as a developer; you're can still abide by them without Apple requiring your to do so. But you have more choice without the rules.
    - deleted 8y ago
      [deleted]
- mattkevan 8y ago
  Freedom without boundaries and trust isn’t freedom but anarchy. A game is only a game if all the players have a shared set of rules and can trust each other to stay within them. As soon as someone breaks the rules the game is over, and the freedom provided is lost.
  - ilikehurdles 8y ago
    Both of these points are wrong.
    - mattkevan 8y ago
      Thanks for the constructive criticism.
wool_gather 8y ago
Particularly in this case we should note that while there may be lost freedom for some developers, there is an increase in freedom for some users. They gain the freedom to explore the wares available in the app market without spending (as much) time worrying about bad actors.
lvs 8y ago
I think you're extending an analogy to a philosophical place it doesn't go: from a "walled garden" to "the rule of law in a free society." There are a variety of features of the latter that are not inherent in the former. For example, justice in a free society should not be arbitrary and capricious. It should be fair and equal, and applied with discretion. A society where minor rules are difficult to understand but are enforced to the maximum extent is a tyranny.
richev 8y ago
Doesn't it depend on the size of the garden, and the diversity within?

izacus 8y ago

You can of course still write software outside app stores and provide best of both. Not every computer in this world is a walled garden.

i_am_nomad 8y ago
You are right, and not just technically. But the problem with walled gardens is that they're safe and easy for people unable to navigate the world outside of them. Most people are unable or unwilling to sideload apps onto their devices, and that is not their fault. So when the walled garden becomes too unfree and tyrannical, the companies maintaining those gardens are to blame.
- foxX 8y ago
  > and that is not their fault Except for some corporate environment, I don't see how it's not their fault. It's easier than ever to make an informed decision before using one's wallet and it's every living, functioning human's duty to improve, grow and learn. Totally tired of apps that are nothing else than options-less and incontrolable browsers.
  - i_am_nomad 8y ago
    You make a valuable point about personal responsibility that I agree with, so I may have to reconsider my original position. (I upvoted you.) But, I would also point out that while there is much more available information to make such decisions, that info is much less comprehensible to the average consumer, who is almost certainly much less savvy about technology than you are.
    - foxX 8y ago
      Also vendors doing their best with astroturfing and obfuscating their works. I wonder why.

sambeau 8y ago

Developers only have themselves to blame. We allowed our technology to be used to spam, cheat and steal from our non-tech family and friends. We made tools that helped the bad-guys and did very little when our non-tech family and friends threw their hands up in confusion and cried for help. We sighed. We called them idiots and rolled our eyes. We now have to live with a bunch mostly sensible though occasionally over-sensitive rules to make sure we don't try to trick and cheat our non-tech brethren. We of course still have plenty of other super-techy places we can play—: Linux, Raspberry Pies, Embedded Devices, the whole of server-side internet. Yet we still moan because someone has walled a bit of it off to protect ordinary people from charlatans. Boo-hoo.

TAForObvReasons 8y ago
You were downvoted but this is spot-on, and you see this debate happening everywhere in tech. The entire GDPR was rooted in the (correct) observation that the tech sector could not self-regulate, that actual laws with nontrivial punishment were required to force tech companies to stop shady behaviors. Even YC isn't clean in this regard. They funded a startup called InstallMonetizer that promulgated the drive-by installer problem: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5092711 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5092711 . There's a great quote from that post: > You can make a lot of money doing all kinds of popular things -- pimping women, selling drugs, selling 'likes' on facebook, selling botnets that create fake clicks on advertisers, ponzi schemes, etc. Some are illegal, some are just barely legal, but they are all damaging to someone. This line of business is known as 'scummy' and InstallMonetizer is plain 'scummy'. Yes we have to blame those who perpetrate the behavior, but we also have to blame ourselves for not being more aggressive in sounding the alarm. For many influential people who could have put a stop to this, the Upton Sinclair quote applies: > It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.
- amelius 8y ago
  The problem is that either policing is not a role for a company, or there should be laws that protect both the developer and the user, like in a normal market. Governments are partly to blame here, for not addressing platform economies. But some are working on it [1]. [1] http://ec.europa.eu/information_society/newsroom/image/document/2016-7/uclouvain_et_universit_saint_louis_14044.pdf http://ec.europa.eu/information_society/newsroom/image/docum...

sonnyblarney 8y ago

"We made a deal with the devil when we collectively decided to write and use apps and not the web." No - apps are fine. Even app stores are fine. It's the fact that you can't distribute an app outside an app store ... this is a problem. So basically Apple is the problem, everyone else is fine.

scarface74 8y ago
It’s only a “problem” for a relatively few techies. Most people would be better served by a wall gardened. Seeing the mess that the average consumer makes on thier Windows computers is evidence. My mom would never have to worry about getting malware because she searched for a printer driver if she had an iPad. Heck, she wouldn’t have had to worry about a printer driver at all. And if you want to see what happens on mobile when you have an App Store with an out clause like on Android for the common consumer, look no further than what happened with Fortnight.
- sonnyblarney 8y ago
  I totally disagree and the evidence is Android. A) Android doesn't have some vast and ugly problem with malfeasance. B) It's entirely possible to educate customers that if they go outside of respected shops - they run the risk of problems. C) The 'Windows' analogy doesn't really hold because mobile OS APIs are totally locked down. Any app installed on Windows/Mac can effectively wipe out your machine. It's a huge risk. An android app has very limited API access, moreover, the user has to grant explicit rights. Fortnight is not a bad example of anything really. There's no evidence that people really benefit from fully walled garden. Moreover, there's evidence that they can't get the apps and functionality they need, because there are quite a number of apps that simply cannot be easily developed and deployed in iPhone - so many corporate and B2B apps. It's possible in only limited scenarios. The 'security' issue is not real. It's a tactic by Apple to control the market and that's mostly it.
  - scarface74 8y ago
    A) Android doesn't have some vast and ugly problem with malfeasance. https://drfone.wondershare.com/android-tips/top-android-virues-list.html https://drfone.wondershare.com/android-tips/top-android-viru... It's entirely possible to educate customers that if they go outside of respected shops - they run the risk of problems. People have been saying the same thing about PCs since the 80s. How has that worked out? An android app has very limited API access, moreover, the user has to grant explicit rights. Like “Access File System”,”read phone state”, etc.? Fortnite isn’t a good example of anything. https://www.cnet.com/news/just-as-critics-feared-fortnite-for-android-came-with-an-epic-security-risk/ https://www.cnet.com/news/just-as-critics-feared-fortnite-fo... There's no evidence that people really benefit from fully walled garden. Except that you never hear about the malware on iOS that is able to be installed on Android devices. There's no evidence that people really benefit from fully walled garden. There is plenty of B2B software on iOS, a large multinational company I use to work for distributed all types of apps for their employees that never went through the App Store. Another company I worked for distributed B2B software for other customers. Moreover, there's evidence that they can't get the apps and functionality they need, What apps does the general non techie consumer “need” or “want” that they can’t get on iOS.

jillesvangurp 8y ago

There's that and the notion that as a distribution mechanism app stores are hopelessly ineffective unless you happen to have bribed your way into being featured or listed in their top whatever (at great expense). (Mobile) web is where the action is these days. The conversion from there to app installs is typically beyond terrible. It just doesn't matter how good your app is. The vast majority of your web users will never see your app or care to see it. A lot of the stuff that currently requires native, you might be able to pull off via wasm instead. In any case, most users simply don't bother with installing apps for anything except a handful of things they really need. You are simply not the center of their universe. So, focus on mobile web. Make it a progressive mobile web app and you have Android covered as well. And whatever else people might use these days (Ipads, Amazon kindles, chrome books, windows ARM, etc.). Add a bit of responsive design and it works on desktops as well. If successful, you can still package your web app as a native app. Lots of other web developers do this. If Apple ever crippled their embedded browser, it would break most of the apps in their store.

lifty 8y ago
You might be right but that doesn't reflect my own experience. I tend prefer native applications when using my mobile phone and I only use the browser for consuming text content. When it comes to more interactive experiences like maps, booking tickets, ordering food, social media etc. I definitely prefer native applications.

amelius 8y ago

Yes, it's one thing if the government regulates a market, yet another if a company regulates it ...