4 ms·

> But if Hey Email or ClassPass or anyone else doesn't like Apples offerings, they can go to a 3rd party store and be available there. I absolutely do not want

> But if Hey Email or ClassPass or anyone else doesn't like Apples offerings, they can go to a 3rd party store and be available there. I absolutely do not want that to happen. This is no way is an actual benefit to anyone. If Hey or ClassPass was relegated to some other app store on iOS, it may as well not exist.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
anchpop 6y ago
Why would people be willing to pay $99/year for Hey but not willing to download a seperate app store?
- valuearb 6y ago
  Very, very few people want to pay $99/year for Hey. Their needs don’t represent the needs of iPhone users in general. And if Hey is typical of the vast majority of SAAS services, they pay affiliate fees and other marketing fees based on a percentage of sales to third parties that promote their service. So why not play Apple their 15% for a seamless in-app purchase system to add new users with?
  - madeofpalk 6y ago
    > So why not play Apple their 15% for a seamless in-app purchase system to add new users with? Hey has responded very specifically to this https://hey.com/apple/iap/ https://hey.com/apple/iap/ Their main objection to this is that they want to own the relationship with the customer. They want to be able to issue a refund or account credit or discount or hardship exceptions, which you cannot do through Apple's App Store.
    - valuearb 6y ago
      I can’t do any of that if I sell products through Walmart, Target, or any retailer but it’s still worth it. I don’t think Hey is quantifying the benefits appropriately.
      - julianozen 6y ago
        That is possible, but right now Hey does not have the ability to weigh its options at all and do what’s best for its business. If they had their app distributed elsewhere and they were losing customers, they could choose to work with apple, but right now they have no choice. At the same time, apple would have to earn its relationship with developers like target and Walmart have to do with their suppliers.
      - danShumway 6y ago
        Nevertheless, Hey should be able to weigh those benefits on their own and make their own choice as to whether or not it's worthwhile. There are plenty of companies and individuals that have chosen to direct-sell rather than offer products through other retailers. It's a choice they can make, foolish or not.
      - Treblemaker 6y ago
        I've purchased many products from local retailers that contain explicit instructions from the manufacturer to NOT contact the retailer if there are any issues, but to contact them directly. So it seems it is possible.
        vineyardmike 6y ago
        Yea, but how many people will do anything but return it to the retailer if there are issues? I know I wouldn't contact them directly.
thebean11 6y ago
> This is no way is an actual benefit to anyone. It's an actual benefit to anybody who is willing to jump through one tiny hoop to get the app they want, and an actual benefit to the developers of those apps. The result is that Apple has to actually be competitive with its App Store. A lot of these BS policies wouldn't last if they had to be competitive.
- valuearb 6y ago
  98% of their policies aren’t BS, but integral to the value of the iPhone for both consumers and developers. Ripping down that framework because of the few rules that are counterproductive is foolish.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
julianozen 6y ago
I think we need to be creative about who could run these app stores too. Amazon could theoretically have an App Store in its main app everyone already has installed. Disney could run a store for kids games. Lots of trusted brands can be viable safe distribution channels
- valuearb 6y ago
  “Trusted” doesn’t make them secure.
  - julianozen 6y ago
    I think this is a very complicated idea. At its root, all secure systems are based on trust of certain entities (be that a bank, a piece of Open Source cryptography, or just a company with values/incentives align with you) Apple has built a secure system, but that is only secure if you trust apple (i.e. one software update could break a secure enclave). The next question is, can the system still be secure, but the trust decentralized. This is complicated and hard, but I would say it is not impossible
    - valuearb 6y ago
      Apple can trust Apple, and isn’t in the business of building the not impossible. The easiest, safest path is to keep it in-house and work on continuously improving your internal security.
  - danShumway 6y ago
    This is a false dichotomy. The reality is that having one app store to fit everyone's needs at the same time makes us less secure. If I'm a parent, I would love to be able to enable an app store that sells human-curated child-friendly apps with no advertising and strict controls over tracking. I'd like that store to be a heck of a lot stricter than Apple's is. Apple can't offer me that level of quality, because the same store needs to serve multiple demographics. Sure, they can flag some apps as mature, but the fact that they're balancing that distinction to try and come up with a set of standards that will be acceptable to everyone across multiple continents means it's very difficult for them to make gut-level instinctual choices or take hardline positions on what they consider acceptable. The same is true for security. Apple has standards about what info apps are allowed to access, and they'll throw apps out for requesting permissions that are unnecessary. But I'm going to be honest -- their standards are lower than mine are. If I was building a privacy-respecting app store, it would be way stricter than Apple's. Having choices gives you the freedom to opt into stores that are strictly regulated and curated on a quality level that Apple will never be able to approach. No single app store that's designed for everyone will ever be as well moderated as a set of distinct stores that are serving specific niches.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

anchpop 6y ago

Why would people be willing to pay $99/year for Hey but not willing to download a seperate app store?

valuearb 6y ago
Very, very few people want to pay $99/year for Hey. Their needs don’t represent the needs of iPhone users in general. And if Hey is typical of the vast majority of SAAS services, they pay affiliate fees and other marketing fees based on a percentage of sales to third parties that promote their service. So why not play Apple their 15% for a seamless in-app purchase system to add new users with?
- madeofpalk 6y ago
  > So why not play Apple their 15% for a seamless in-app purchase system to add new users with? Hey has responded very specifically to this https://hey.com/apple/iap/ https://hey.com/apple/iap/ Their main objection to this is that they want to own the relationship with the customer. They want to be able to issue a refund or account credit or discount or hardship exceptions, which you cannot do through Apple's App Store.
  - valuearb 6y ago
    I can’t do any of that if I sell products through Walmart, Target, or any retailer but it’s still worth it. I don’t think Hey is quantifying the benefits appropriately.
    - julianozen 6y ago
      That is possible, but right now Hey does not have the ability to weigh its options at all and do what’s best for its business. If they had their app distributed elsewhere and they were losing customers, they could choose to work with apple, but right now they have no choice. At the same time, apple would have to earn its relationship with developers like target and Walmart have to do with their suppliers.
    - danShumway 6y ago
      Nevertheless, Hey should be able to weigh those benefits on their own and make their own choice as to whether or not it's worthwhile. There are plenty of companies and individuals that have chosen to direct-sell rather than offer products through other retailers. It's a choice they can make, foolish or not.
    - Treblemaker 6y ago
      I've purchased many products from local retailers that contain explicit instructions from the manufacturer to NOT contact the retailer if there are any issues, but to contact them directly. So it seems it is possible.
      - vineyardmike 6y ago
        Yea, but how many people will do anything but return it to the retailer if there are issues? I know I wouldn't contact them directly.

thebean11 6y ago

> This is no way is an actual benefit to anyone. It's an actual benefit to anybody who is willing to jump through one tiny hoop to get the app they want, and an actual benefit to the developers of those apps. The result is that Apple has to actually be competitive with its App Store. A lot of these BS policies wouldn't last if they had to be competitive.

valuearb 6y ago
98% of their policies aren’t BS, but integral to the value of the iPhone for both consumers and developers. Ripping down that framework because of the few rules that are counterproductive is foolish.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]

julianozen 6y ago

I think we need to be creative about who could run these app stores too. Amazon could theoretically have an App Store in its main app everyone already has installed. Disney could run a store for kids games. Lots of trusted brands can be viable safe distribution channels

valuearb 6y ago
“Trusted” doesn’t make them secure.
- julianozen 6y ago
  I think this is a very complicated idea. At its root, all secure systems are based on trust of certain entities (be that a bank, a piece of Open Source cryptography, or just a company with values/incentives align with you) Apple has built a secure system, but that is only secure if you trust apple (i.e. one software update could break a secure enclave). The next question is, can the system still be secure, but the trust decentralized. This is complicated and hard, but I would say it is not impossible
  - valuearb 6y ago
    Apple can trust Apple, and isn’t in the business of building the not impossible. The easiest, safest path is to keep it in-house and work on continuously improving your internal security.
- danShumway 6y ago
  This is a false dichotomy. The reality is that having one app store to fit everyone's needs at the same time makes us less secure. If I'm a parent, I would love to be able to enable an app store that sells human-curated child-friendly apps with no advertising and strict controls over tracking. I'd like that store to be a heck of a lot stricter than Apple's is. Apple can't offer me that level of quality, because the same store needs to serve multiple demographics. Sure, they can flag some apps as mature, but the fact that they're balancing that distinction to try and come up with a set of standards that will be acceptable to everyone across multiple continents means it's very difficult for them to make gut-level instinctual choices or take hardline positions on what they consider acceptable. The same is true for security. Apple has standards about what info apps are allowed to access, and they'll throw apps out for requesting permissions that are unnecessary. But I'm going to be honest -- their standards are lower than mine are. If I was building a privacy-respecting app store, it would be way stricter than Apple's. Having choices gives you the freedom to opt into stores that are strictly regulated and curated on a quality level that Apple will never be able to approach. No single app store that's designed for everyone will ever be as well moderated as a set of distinct stores that are serving specific niches.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]