7 ms·

Developers really should stage a revolt on both Google and Apple's mobile phone ecosystems. They have ruined computing for users (locked down systems with no a

Developers really should stage a revolt on both Google and Apple's mobile phone ecosystems. They have ruined computing for users (locked down systems with no ability to tinker) and make it impossible to have any viable business on their platforms, since they have total control over you, can shut you down at any time without recourse, and retroactively change terms. It is part of a larger trend of evolving business world where small players are doomed.

graton 6y ago
This is not 100% correct for Google. Realistically yes I agree. But you can at least install a 3rd Party app store on Android, as I have done with F-droid. Also I believe Amazon has an App store too. The percentage of people who do that is very small I realize. Now Apple does not offer anyway that I have heard of for people to offer an alternative app store.
- Andrew_nenakhov 6y ago
  While you CAN sideload an app on Android, it would still be crippled on modern versions of Android, because it would not be able to receive push notifications. Coupled with the fact that recent versions of Android aggressively offload background apps from memory, many types of applications function with great difficulty. This CAN be overcome by a special app that keeps connection with an alternative push notification server, but it would still be prone to offloading and would have to run a persistent notification. The proper solution would be unlocking notification services on Android devices and allowing to chose alternative push notifications providers. This can also be applied to iOS.
  - namibj 6y ago
    The thing is, though, that Firebase push notifications are deeply integrated with mobile networks. They get special treatment to ensure energy-efficient operation, at the cost of more idle connections hanging in the network infrastructure. Yes, with IPv6 that should/could become much less relevant, but then you loose the traffic-flood-DoS protections you get from CG-NAT.
    - dannyw 6y ago
      OK, Google may charge for Firebase push notifications. Including making a profit from it of course. They may not perform anticompetitive behaviour like bundling (as they have already been fined for in the EU over Android and Play Services).
      - namibj 6y ago
        Huh? FCM is free: https://firebase.google.com/products/cloud-messaging https://firebase.google.com/products/cloud-messaging I don't see the anti-competitive part there. There are good reasons around consolidating resident daemons and only using a single TCP connection with a special keep-alive configuration. And from experience, it's perfectly possible to not use FCM, at the cost of a persistent notification that alerts the user about this, so they can get rid of abusive apps.
        dannyw 6y ago
        Can you use FCM for non-Play-Store apps? I was under the impression you couldn't from the grand-grand-parent.
        namibj 6y ago
        I found no evidence for either side, but I can't easily test it right now.
        neurostimulant 6y ago
        I think you can but you still have to link to Google play services, which is not possible for open source apps in f-droid since they need to be able to run on de-googled android which lacks Google services.
        namibj 6y ago
        It looks like FCM is supported by the open replacement I linked in a close-by comment, here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23571663 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23571663
  - ex3ndr 6y ago
    Killing apps in the background and offloading them from memory is a godsend for a Android ecosystem. It is literally so much harder to make anything battery optimized since you have get information about almost everything to make it right: need radio? beware that it is in active state and only then send data. Want do background processing? Wait until user will charge it's phone. Making apps battery efficient is insanely hard task and it is solvable by just offloading everything to an OS. I have built several push services for my previous projects it always sooo hard to implement right. iOS for example, uses 25+ different parameters to optimize push delivery depending on your app usage, on how you are using your phone and so on. Good luck to build this as "third party" and keep everything private.
    - Andrew_nenakhov 6y ago
      It is a godsend only up to a point when you can't run an app in the background even if you badly need to. The computers (and Android devices are computers) should not be putting their users into straight jackets so they won't hurt themselves. Users should have an option to do what they want. The system's job is to inform that what they are doing is using battery. If a user is OK with it, the system SHOULD NOT interfere.
      - ex3ndr 6y ago
        Using such information is so hard that almost impossible. I could spend a year tailoring battery performance for a messenger and still get random guy who have some exotic phone with some strange behaviour. There are really almost no need to run app in the background or at least constantly send data without a reason (mostly just tracking). UPD: When deciding how to build something i have one small trick: first ask question about who can make better decision about something? For example? Who is more capable to make decision about battery usage, about tweaking core performance, etc? It is obviously kernel or silicone itself. App will never have required information to build perfect performant app for every device. This just means that you have to build a kernel by yourself and even more: common kernel for every phone.
        6y ago
  - solarkraft 6y ago
    > it would still be crippled on modern versions of Android, because it would not be able to receive push notifications My understanding is that this is not an effect of side loading, but an app not using Google Cloud Messaging, which is not available when play services are not installed.
    - tolpp 6y ago
      Yeah, that's true. Anyone can distribute their Andrioid app using their desired way. Even via web site. Exmple: https://signal.org/android/apk/ https://signal.org/android/apk/ Sending push messages to Android phone using Firebase Cloud Messaging(FCM, formerly GCM) requires "Google Play Services" installed on that Android device. Google Play Services is not depends on Google Play Store and is not requires that applications using Play Services should installed by Play Store.
- gibolt 6y ago
  Technically you have web-apps, but it is also going to be a tiny minority who would seek that out. And of course they are not as feature rich
- perryizgr8 6y ago
  For completeness, Huawei and Samsung also have their respective app stores.
- t0ughcritic 6y ago
  No one uses the third party App Store. Even mentioning it is silly
  - erk__ 6y ago
    The single biggest market does not use anything else. The Google play store does just not exist in China, instead there are multiple different 3rd party app stores. There is a study here which is a couple of years old about such stores. https://arxiv.org/pdf/1810.07780.pdf https://arxiv.org/pdf/1810.07780.pdf
siquick 6y ago
> They have ruined computing for users (locked down systems with no ability to tinker) This just isn't an issue for 99.9% of users.
- ddingus 6y ago
  Maybe right now. Bet that does not last. Those of us who understand the implications now would benefit ourselves and many others by helping more people find that spark, that need, want to tinker.
- pkage 6y ago
  To hop on this train: people like you and I love customizing our devices and tailoring our experiences to exactly what we'd like, and that's completely fine. To a lot of people, though, their mobile device is just a tool—a tool that they can use to do other things. In that usecase, the phone needs to work as simply and reliably as possible, and by reducing the amount of things that can go wrong (live wallpapers draining the phone's battery and sketchy application launchers come to mind) the more approachable that system is. My take is this: computers (especially phones) are like cars: some people love to tinker with them and take on a project car that they tweak to their liking, but most people need a reliable and inexpensive car that can get them to and from the grocery store.
  - m463 6y ago
    > like cars Now some people never open the hood of their car. And for those who do, a lot of car manufacturers have just the answer -- they have a second hood under the first hood (it's plastic and only has holes for maybe the wiper fluid). but apple is bolting the hood shut. and welding it. (it's such a shame, really)
- _ph_ 6y ago
  While most useres don't want to "tinker" themselves, limiting the ability to do so can limit the experience of all users. Because a too strict app review does limit the range of apps available for a system, and that has the potential to affect all users.
- 6y ago
troughway 6y ago
“It’s their product they can do whatever they want” - HN, literally. You didn’t see this coming? Good one, now pull the other one.
- x3n0ph3n3 6y ago
  It's almost as if HN isn't a single monolithic hivemind and is composed of a multitude of sometimes similar, sometimes conflicting opinions!
  - hedora 6y ago
    I disagree.
samwize 6y ago
We should remove our apps for a day or 2.
- bahador 6y ago
  Sounds like you should organize a strike. An app store walkout.
  - bduerst 6y ago
    An app shutdown day would be more appropos. Easier to coordinate a deployment for, and affects all users, not just installing one. It would also allow you to control the messaging users see when they open your app and it only loads the walk out day screen.
    - lvturner 6y ago
      Why not just display the message and then allow users to use the app. Punishing the users of an app for the behaviour of the store, while attention grabbing and potentially impactful, seems a bit like chucking the baby out with the bathwater.
      - bduerst 6y ago
        That's fair, though app disruption is more impactful - kind of like how websites went down for SOPA.
juanbyrge 6y ago
Is the alternative really better? Look at Windows, which had no restrictions on apps that you could install. It was a security nightmare and became a cesspool of malware. You just had to trick people into opening a .exe and you could compromise the machine. Most consumers are dumb and it should not be possible to trick them into installing arbitrary binaries.
- _ph_ 6y ago
  The problem is, the App Store conflates security review with "curating". The question, whether "Hey" offers in-app purchases or not is not a security question, the app was rejected because Apple requires in-app purchases (from which they take 30%).
- modeless 6y ago
  And yet, it is still the most popular desktop OS, and desktop PCs with more open OSes have capabilities that even iPads with keyboard docks can't touch. Plus, there are about a million things you could do to improve the security of an OS that don't require a gatekeeper. Windows specifically has many problems but that shouldn't condemn the entire concept of a computer that the user actually has control over.
  - zimpenfish 6y ago
    > And yet, it is still the most popular desktop OS "most popular" in the sense of "most widely installed and tolerated", perhaps, but definitely not "most popular because people actively chose it where there are other viable options" because, for many people, there is no viable alternative (e.g. gamers).
    - distances 6y ago
      > for many people, there is no viable alternative (e.g. gamers). There's an increasing feeling that Linux is getting there for gamers too. There are already mainstream narratives [0] that Linux may be better for gaming than Windows! [0] E.g. https://youtu.be/6T_-HMkgxt0 https://youtu.be/6T_-HMkgxt0

graton 6y ago

This is not 100% correct for Google. Realistically yes I agree. But you can at least install a 3rd Party app store on Android, as I have done with F-droid. Also I believe Amazon has an App store too. The percentage of people who do that is very small I realize. Now Apple does not offer anyway that I have heard of for people to offer an alternative app store.

Andrew_nenakhov 6y ago
While you CAN sideload an app on Android, it would still be crippled on modern versions of Android, because it would not be able to receive push notifications. Coupled with the fact that recent versions of Android aggressively offload background apps from memory, many types of applications function with great difficulty. This CAN be overcome by a special app that keeps connection with an alternative push notification server, but it would still be prone to offloading and would have to run a persistent notification. The proper solution would be unlocking notification services on Android devices and allowing to chose alternative push notifications providers. This can also be applied to iOS.
- namibj 6y ago
  The thing is, though, that Firebase push notifications are deeply integrated with mobile networks. They get special treatment to ensure energy-efficient operation, at the cost of more idle connections hanging in the network infrastructure. Yes, with IPv6 that should/could become much less relevant, but then you loose the traffic-flood-DoS protections you get from CG-NAT.
  - dannyw 6y ago
    OK, Google may charge for Firebase push notifications. Including making a profit from it of course. They may not perform anticompetitive behaviour like bundling (as they have already been fined for in the EU over Android and Play Services).
    - namibj 6y ago
      Huh? FCM is free: https://firebase.google.com/products/cloud-messaging https://firebase.google.com/products/cloud-messaging I don't see the anti-competitive part there. There are good reasons around consolidating resident daemons and only using a single TCP connection with a special keep-alive configuration. And from experience, it's perfectly possible to not use FCM, at the cost of a persistent notification that alerts the user about this, so they can get rid of abusive apps.
      - dannyw 6y ago
        Can you use FCM for non-Play-Store apps? I was under the impression you couldn't from the grand-grand-parent.
        namibj 6y ago
        I found no evidence for either side, but I can't easily test it right now.
        neurostimulant 6y ago
        I think you can but you still have to link to Google play services, which is not possible for open source apps in f-droid since they need to be able to run on de-googled android which lacks Google services.
        namibj 6y ago
        It looks like FCM is supported by the open replacement I linked in a close-by comment, here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23571663 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23571663
- ex3ndr 6y ago
  Killing apps in the background and offloading them from memory is a godsend for a Android ecosystem. It is literally so much harder to make anything battery optimized since you have get information about almost everything to make it right: need radio? beware that it is in active state and only then send data. Want do background processing? Wait until user will charge it's phone. Making apps battery efficient is insanely hard task and it is solvable by just offloading everything to an OS. I have built several push services for my previous projects it always sooo hard to implement right. iOS for example, uses 25+ different parameters to optimize push delivery depending on your app usage, on how you are using your phone and so on. Good luck to build this as "third party" and keep everything private.
  - Andrew_nenakhov 6y ago
    It is a godsend only up to a point when you can't run an app in the background even if you badly need to. The computers (and Android devices are computers) should not be putting their users into straight jackets so they won't hurt themselves. Users should have an option to do what they want. The system's job is to inform that what they are doing is using battery. If a user is OK with it, the system SHOULD NOT interfere.
    - ex3ndr 6y ago
      Using such information is so hard that almost impossible. I could spend a year tailoring battery performance for a messenger and still get random guy who have some exotic phone with some strange behaviour. There are really almost no need to run app in the background or at least constantly send data without a reason (mostly just tracking). UPD: When deciding how to build something i have one small trick: first ask question about who can make better decision about something? For example? Who is more capable to make decision about battery usage, about tweaking core performance, etc? It is obviously kernel or silicone itself. App will never have required information to build perfect performant app for every device. This just means that you have to build a kernel by yourself and even more: common kernel for every phone.
      - 6y ago
- solarkraft 6y ago
  > it would still be crippled on modern versions of Android, because it would not be able to receive push notifications My understanding is that this is not an effect of side loading, but an app not using Google Cloud Messaging, which is not available when play services are not installed.
  - tolpp 6y ago
    Yeah, that's true. Anyone can distribute their Andrioid app using their desired way. Even via web site. Exmple: https://signal.org/android/apk/ https://signal.org/android/apk/ Sending push messages to Android phone using Firebase Cloud Messaging(FCM, formerly GCM) requires "Google Play Services" installed on that Android device. Google Play Services is not depends on Google Play Store and is not requires that applications using Play Services should installed by Play Store.
gibolt 6y ago
Technically you have web-apps, but it is also going to be a tiny minority who would seek that out. And of course they are not as feature rich
perryizgr8 6y ago
For completeness, Huawei and Samsung also have their respective app stores.
t0ughcritic 6y ago
No one uses the third party App Store. Even mentioning it is silly
- erk__ 6y ago
  The single biggest market does not use anything else. The Google play store does just not exist in China, instead there are multiple different 3rd party app stores. There is a study here which is a couple of years old about such stores. https://arxiv.org/pdf/1810.07780.pdf https://arxiv.org/pdf/1810.07780.pdf

siquick 6y ago

> They have ruined computing for users (locked down systems with no ability to tinker) This just isn't an issue for 99.9% of users.

ddingus 6y ago
Maybe right now. Bet that does not last. Those of us who understand the implications now would benefit ourselves and many others by helping more people find that spark, that need, want to tinker.
pkage 6y ago
To hop on this train: people like you and I love customizing our devices and tailoring our experiences to exactly what we'd like, and that's completely fine. To a lot of people, though, their mobile device is just a tool—a tool that they can use to do other things. In that usecase, the phone needs to work as simply and reliably as possible, and by reducing the amount of things that can go wrong (live wallpapers draining the phone's battery and sketchy application launchers come to mind) the more approachable that system is. My take is this: computers (especially phones) are like cars: some people love to tinker with them and take on a project car that they tweak to their liking, but most people need a reliable and inexpensive car that can get them to and from the grocery store.
- m463 6y ago
  > like cars Now some people never open the hood of their car. And for those who do, a lot of car manufacturers have just the answer -- they have a second hood under the first hood (it's plastic and only has holes for maybe the wiper fluid). but apple is bolting the hood shut. and welding it. (it's such a shame, really)
_ph_ 6y ago
While most useres don't want to "tinker" themselves, limiting the ability to do so can limit the experience of all users. Because a too strict app review does limit the range of apps available for a system, and that has the potential to affect all users.
6y ago

troughway 6y ago

“It’s their product they can do whatever they want” - HN, literally. You didn’t see this coming? Good one, now pull the other one.

x3n0ph3n3 6y ago
It's almost as if HN isn't a single monolithic hivemind and is composed of a multitude of sometimes similar, sometimes conflicting opinions!
- hedora 6y ago
  I disagree.

samwize 6y ago

We should remove our apps for a day or 2.

bahador 6y ago
Sounds like you should organize a strike. An app store walkout.
- bduerst 6y ago
  An app shutdown day would be more appropos. Easier to coordinate a deployment for, and affects all users, not just installing one. It would also allow you to control the messaging users see when they open your app and it only loads the walk out day screen.
  - lvturner 6y ago
    Why not just display the message and then allow users to use the app. Punishing the users of an app for the behaviour of the store, while attention grabbing and potentially impactful, seems a bit like chucking the baby out with the bathwater.
    - bduerst 6y ago
      That's fair, though app disruption is more impactful - kind of like how websites went down for SOPA.

juanbyrge 6y ago

Is the alternative really better? Look at Windows, which had no restrictions on apps that you could install. It was a security nightmare and became a cesspool of malware. You just had to trick people into opening a .exe and you could compromise the machine. Most consumers are dumb and it should not be possible to trick them into installing arbitrary binaries.

_ph_ 6y ago
The problem is, the App Store conflates security review with "curating". The question, whether "Hey" offers in-app purchases or not is not a security question, the app was rejected because Apple requires in-app purchases (from which they take 30%).
modeless 6y ago
And yet, it is still the most popular desktop OS, and desktop PCs with more open OSes have capabilities that even iPads with keyboard docks can't touch. Plus, there are about a million things you could do to improve the security of an OS that don't require a gatekeeper. Windows specifically has many problems but that shouldn't condemn the entire concept of a computer that the user actually has control over.
- zimpenfish 6y ago
  > And yet, it is still the most popular desktop OS "most popular" in the sense of "most widely installed and tolerated", perhaps, but definitely not "most popular because people actively chose it where there are other viable options" because, for many people, there is no viable alternative (e.g. gamers).
  - distances 6y ago
    > for many people, there is no viable alternative (e.g. gamers). There's an increasing feeling that Linux is getting there for gamers too. There are already mainstream narratives [0] that Linux may be better for gaming than Windows! [0] E.g. https://youtu.be/6T_-HMkgxt0 https://youtu.be/6T_-HMkgxt0