6 ms·

The google store operates in the same way. Application developers need to band together and quit accepting these locked down store monopolies. They aren't good

The google store operates in the same way. Application developers need to band together and quit accepting these locked down store monopolies. They aren't good for consumers either. The usual justification is that these stores reduce fruad and malware, but I have found the opposite to be true. Having a single store leads to an aggressive race to the bottom, where gaming the store ranking is priority one. Last two times I tried to find a rather obvious piece of software on apple store (a chess program, and a stopwatch program) I couldn't even find stuff that wasn't misleading adware ridden crap.

Paperweight 7y ago
Then there are the overseas developers who release the same low-quality app under several different names to game the search results. (BTW, you're looking for lichess)
ancorevard 7y ago
"They aren't good for consumers either." Can't speak for the Google store, but as a consumer, I definitely trust Apple's apps more than random developers' apps. So in Apple's case, I always appreciate when they provide another service/app that I can use, because their values on privacy aligns with mine and they have built up a trust relationship with me.
- jtbayly 7y ago
  But that’s completely different than the question of what the App Store accomplishes. Apple didn’t need or develop an App Store to distribute their own apps, but third party ones.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
- cma 7y ago
  > Can't speak for the Google store, but as a consumer, I definitely trust Apple's apps more than random developers' apps. Couldn't you still have that without banning off-store apps?
  - xnyan 7y ago
    By default, you can't side-load applications on any android phone I've used in the last 5 years. It's not hard to turn it off, but it's also not obvious how and a consumer would have to be taken step-by-step on how to do it, and so the default Google experience is the same as Apple, sans the critical difference of much much more stringent app review on iOS.
    - cma 7y ago
      Epic was able to get over 15 million Fortnite installs as of around this time last year and may be bringing their store to Android as well (12% cut instead of 30%): https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2018/09/fortnite-reaches-15-million-android-downloads-without-google-play/ https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2018/09/fortnite-reaches-15-m...
    - soylentcola 7y ago
      Not sure when it was last updated, but for at least the past few years, any time I tap to install an application I got from a dev's site or whatever, it basically says "hey, you haven't given permission to install apps from this source. doing so might not be safe, etc." with a link/button to take you to the menu with the relevant toggle. As an end user, it's akin to typing my root password to clicking "accept" on Windows UAC. I can still install it just fine, but I need to give permission and check the box accepting responsibility. Whether that's enough to protect someone from doing something unwise can be debated, but it's not something you'd really need instructions for.
kazinator 7y ago
Application developers practically tripped over each other in a scramble to join these stores. Serves them right.
- coldtea 7y ago
  What exactly "serves" them? Just in 2018, the App Store paid developers $34 billion from their sales. https://fortune.com/2019/01/28/apple-app-store-developer-earnings-2018/ https://fortune.com/2019/01/28/apple-app-store-developer-ear...
  - Jyaif 7y ago
    An other way of seing things is that developers paid Apple $10+ billion in 2018.
    - coldtea 7y ago
      Which they wouldn't had made had the platform not existed... ...and which they don't as easily make on the Android platform...
bilbo0s 7y ago
I agree with all the things you say about trying to get more freedom on mobile platforms, but let's not be disingenuous. Allowing more freedom on app stores absolutely increases viruses and malware that can get onto phones. If we aren't honest about that then we won't be out brainstorming methods of avoiding that kind of cesspool.
- the8472 7y ago
  Is that brainstorming a prerequisite to letting people be adult humans with free will who can, after a few warnings, be allowed to make their own choices? We allow people to drink, gamble, join ponzi schemes or self-harm. The non-negotiable nannying around app stores seems infantilizing in comparison. To answer your question, yes the risks are real. But so is life.
  - hombre_fatal 7y ago
    No, I don’t think sewing opportunity for scammers to take advantage of others is better. I used to agree with you in my libertarian utopia stage as a uni freshman but looked at things differently when I watched my tech unsavvy parents lose money to scams like subscription antivirus software that just played the same bullshit scanning animation every time. “Personal choice” is probably the same justification the scammers have. To me it’s just naive. Power users can already use Android and bypass such constraints. Win/win.
    - the8472 7y ago
      Again, I don't see how antivirus scammers are any different than other IRL scams such as lotteries (state-sanctioned!), ponzi schemes etc. Cash transactions are no different from sideloading (on desktops we call this "installing") applications. They are between only you and the vendor, no 3rd party involved. Sure, your parents are affected. But other people's parents are smokers, having their QALYs stolen by the tobacco industry. And yet all we do is add some nudges and hope they'll stop, nothing more. This is hypocrisy.
  - scarface74 7y ago
rimliu 7y ago
Outside of the stores you are relying on search engines. Now tell me how SEO is not "an aggressive race to the bottom, where gaming the store ranking is priority one".
- 9HZZRfNlpR 7y ago
  Google ranks things better, at least compared to the play store. Ads and its side effects make apps and the stores total freakshow. You can't install any app for kids by using simple search without dark patterned ads flying at you and your kid by accident opening them. Some poor soul is paying for this so called engagement too.
gridlockd 7y ago
I'm not sure I understand this line of reasoning. Crapware/Malware exists even in locked down store monopolies, therefore we need to open up the platform even more? What do you want, alternative app stores? The ability to sideload apps? Android has all that, it's still an awful platform to develop for. Let's say this guy could go the alternative route and publish elsewhere. He'd still have a problem because most of the traffic goes through the Appstore, not some other venue.
- sergiosgc 7y ago
  The idea is that you give the store operator a monopoly, with the downsides this implies(1), in exchange for security. If security is absent, there's no justification for accepting a monopoly. (1) For example, the store keeping an absurd share of app revenues. About 30%, isn't it?
  - scarface74 7y ago
    Absurd compared to retail stores of old that kept 50-60%? Absurd compared to carriers who kept 70% in the pre smart phone area when distributing J2ME apps?
    - sergiosgc 7y ago
      Absurd compared to any open online ecosystem, where you pay 2% for payment processing.
      - scarface74 7y ago
        Do you think that it costs nothing for app review, hosting servers, legal, accounting (sending it out 1099s), refund handling, etc? Can you name one retailer that pays only 2% between retail and wholesale?
        sergiosgc 7y ago
        All of that so the app store is clean. If it isn't clean, then you're throwing money away. That's the gist of what I originally said.
ajross 7y ago
> They aren't good for consumers either. They're at least a little good for consumers. Look at the Windows software world of the early internet era for what can happen with a completely unrestricted software installation paradigm. As annoying as it is to be an app developer with a good app banned for silly reasons, remember the developers used to be pushing straight up malware along with their apps. At least now you know that your music purchase isn't installing a rootkit. Could it be better? Yeah. But it could also be a lot worse.

Paperweight 7y ago

Then there are the overseas developers who release the same low-quality app under several different names to game the search results. (BTW, you're looking for lichess)

ancorevard 7y ago

"They aren't good for consumers either." Can't speak for the Google store, but as a consumer, I definitely trust Apple's apps more than random developers' apps. So in Apple's case, I always appreciate when they provide another service/app that I can use, because their values on privacy aligns with mine and they have built up a trust relationship with me.

jtbayly 7y ago
But that’s completely different than the question of what the App Store accomplishes. Apple didn’t need or develop an App Store to distribute their own apps, but third party ones.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
cma 7y ago
> Can't speak for the Google store, but as a consumer, I definitely trust Apple's apps more than random developers' apps. Couldn't you still have that without banning off-store apps?
- xnyan 7y ago
  By default, you can't side-load applications on any android phone I've used in the last 5 years. It's not hard to turn it off, but it's also not obvious how and a consumer would have to be taken step-by-step on how to do it, and so the default Google experience is the same as Apple, sans the critical difference of much much more stringent app review on iOS.
  - cma 7y ago
    Epic was able to get over 15 million Fortnite installs as of around this time last year and may be bringing their store to Android as well (12% cut instead of 30%): https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2018/09/fortnite-reaches-15-million-android-downloads-without-google-play/ https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2018/09/fortnite-reaches-15-m...
  - soylentcola 7y ago
    Not sure when it was last updated, but for at least the past few years, any time I tap to install an application I got from a dev's site or whatever, it basically says "hey, you haven't given permission to install apps from this source. doing so might not be safe, etc." with a link/button to take you to the menu with the relevant toggle. As an end user, it's akin to typing my root password to clicking "accept" on Windows UAC. I can still install it just fine, but I need to give permission and check the box accepting responsibility. Whether that's enough to protect someone from doing something unwise can be debated, but it's not something you'd really need instructions for.

kazinator 7y ago

Application developers practically tripped over each other in a scramble to join these stores. Serves them right.

coldtea 7y ago
What exactly "serves" them? Just in 2018, the App Store paid developers $34 billion from their sales. https://fortune.com/2019/01/28/apple-app-store-developer-earnings-2018/ https://fortune.com/2019/01/28/apple-app-store-developer-ear...
- Jyaif 7y ago
  An other way of seing things is that developers paid Apple $10+ billion in 2018.
  - coldtea 7y ago
    Which they wouldn't had made had the platform not existed... ...and which they don't as easily make on the Android platform...

bilbo0s 7y ago

I agree with all the things you say about trying to get more freedom on mobile platforms, but let's not be disingenuous. Allowing more freedom on app stores absolutely increases viruses and malware that can get onto phones. If we aren't honest about that then we won't be out brainstorming methods of avoiding that kind of cesspool.

the8472 7y ago
Is that brainstorming a prerequisite to letting people be adult humans with free will who can, after a few warnings, be allowed to make their own choices? We allow people to drink, gamble, join ponzi schemes or self-harm. The non-negotiable nannying around app stores seems infantilizing in comparison. To answer your question, yes the risks are real. But so is life.
- hombre_fatal 7y ago
  No, I don’t think sewing opportunity for scammers to take advantage of others is better. I used to agree with you in my libertarian utopia stage as a uni freshman but looked at things differently when I watched my tech unsavvy parents lose money to scams like subscription antivirus software that just played the same bullshit scanning animation every time. “Personal choice” is probably the same justification the scammers have. To me it’s just naive. Power users can already use Android and bypass such constraints. Win/win.
  - the8472 7y ago
    Again, I don't see how antivirus scammers are any different than other IRL scams such as lotteries (state-sanctioned!), ponzi schemes etc. Cash transactions are no different from sideloading (on desktops we call this "installing") applications. They are between only you and the vendor, no 3rd party involved. Sure, your parents are affected. But other people's parents are smokers, having their QALYs stolen by the tobacco industry. And yet all we do is add some nudges and hope they'll stop, nothing more. This is hypocrisy.
- scarface74 7y ago

rimliu 7y ago

Outside of the stores you are relying on search engines. Now tell me how SEO is not "an aggressive race to the bottom, where gaming the store ranking is priority one".

9HZZRfNlpR 7y ago
Google ranks things better, at least compared to the play store. Ads and its side effects make apps and the stores total freakshow. You can't install any app for kids by using simple search without dark patterned ads flying at you and your kid by accident opening them. Some poor soul is paying for this so called engagement too.

gridlockd 7y ago

I'm not sure I understand this line of reasoning. Crapware/Malware exists even in locked down store monopolies, therefore we need to open up the platform even more? What do you want, alternative app stores? The ability to sideload apps? Android has all that, it's still an awful platform to develop for. Let's say this guy could go the alternative route and publish elsewhere. He'd still have a problem because most of the traffic goes through the Appstore, not some other venue.

sergiosgc 7y ago
The idea is that you give the store operator a monopoly, with the downsides this implies(1), in exchange for security. If security is absent, there's no justification for accepting a monopoly. (1) For example, the store keeping an absurd share of app revenues. About 30%, isn't it?
- scarface74 7y ago
  Absurd compared to retail stores of old that kept 50-60%? Absurd compared to carriers who kept 70% in the pre smart phone area when distributing J2ME apps?
  - sergiosgc 7y ago
    Absurd compared to any open online ecosystem, where you pay 2% for payment processing.
    - scarface74 7y ago
      Do you think that it costs nothing for app review, hosting servers, legal, accounting (sending it out 1099s), refund handling, etc? Can you name one retailer that pays only 2% between retail and wholesale?
      - sergiosgc 7y ago
        All of that so the app store is clean. If it isn't clean, then you're throwing money away. That's the gist of what I originally said.

ajross 7y ago

> They aren't good for consumers either. They're at least a little good for consumers. Look at the Windows software world of the early internet era for what can happen with a completely unrestricted software installation paradigm. As annoying as it is to be an app developer with a good app banned for silly reasons, remember the developers used to be pushing straight up malware along with their apps. At least now you know that your music purchase isn't installing a rootkit. Could it be better? Yeah. But it could also be a lot worse.