5 ms·

Three sincere questions for the group: Does anyone disagree that Apple and Google have the right to just go "this app store business is just not worth the head

by pneill 6y ago

Three sincere questions for the group: Does anyone disagree that Apple and Google have the right to just go "this app store business is just not worth the headaches, we're gonna shut it all down." When I read hackernews a lot, I get the impression folks think these app stores are some kind of public commons. And my second question: Who do you think customers will blame when someone uses an alternative payment approach to steal from customers? Google/Apple? The app provider? Themselves? Third question: What's a customers recourse once they are the victims of fraud or simply want a refund for whatever reason? How easy will it be for them to reason about what to do?

blackoil 6y ago
They should blame store/app provider. E-commerce over the web is pretty well established, don't think people blame Windows/Chrome when some shady site frauds them.
- pneill 6y ago
  Logically, you're 100% correct. But I don't think most folks will reason it that way. Do you think a senior citizen will follow that reasoning? And then how will they contact the provider? What is the provider doesn't respond (for the case of simple refund request)?
chillacy 6y ago
Presumably other companies would run app stores and do things like refunds. After all there are already apps where you can buy stuff on your phone not through the app store (Audible, AirBnb, Amazon, etc). Why are apps any different?
- pneill 6y ago
  Yeah, but how does Apple/Google determine if an app developer has the capability to do it and verify that they're consistently doing it? Or are we saying that only big companies with verified and known payment platforms can use their own payment system? And then, how many bad experiences for these types of purchases (or articles about bad experiences) will customers tolerate before they stop trusting in-app or third party purchases? One? A hundred?
  - chillacy 6y ago
    I'm sure people have had bad experiences on AirBnB and Amazon. I don't think Apple should try to curate Amazon's reviews or vet AirBnB hosts. Or a real life analogy: every year someone drinks bleach and dies. I'd rather we didn't make bleach completely illegal. Maybe Apple can do what the Mac does and have some prompts like "hey danger ahead".
Apocryphon 6y ago
Apple and Google do not have that right, because as many headaches there are involved, killing their services cash cows would be abandoning their fiduciary duty to investors in an almost litigation-worthy boneheaded move.
- baddox 6y ago
  If it poses a threat of major antitrust action, then perhaps their fiduciary duty would be to shut down the app stores.
- pneill 6y ago
  Not sure I follow you. Do you mean, they won't do it because it makes a lot of money or do you mean they straight up don't have the right because of the economic platform they've created benefits a lot of people. Just to be clear, I'm just trying to understand if folks think the app store is a public commons or is it private property? Lots of the comments on this issue imply that the store is a public commons. And I'm wondering if that's a common view.
  - Apocryphon 6y ago
    Because it makes a lot of money, Apple doesn't have the right to engage in such a self-sabotaging move because they are bound to their investors, who would be mad at them willingly destroying such a revenue stream. So debates about commons aside, the question is somewhat ludicrous because it's about as fanciful and applicable as "What if Microsoft released the Windows source code?"
    - prewett 6y ago
      A bit off-topic, but frankly, I think trying to use the Windows source code would be a liability for everyone but something like WINE. Just building it would be a trick, last I heard a full build of Windows took an entire day. I'm guessing it wasn't your beefy Dell machine building it, either. I'll bet there are so many pieces and custom tools and forgotten necessary settings on build machines that building it would be a nightmare. And then there is the test suite. I wouldn't trust a custom build of Windows, who knows all the subtle settings here and there that are necessary to get the same result. I think Microsoft could put the Windows source on GitHub tomorrow and the only thing that would happen is that they'd get a lot of bug bounties and an increase in the number of people they could hire who could just step in and start working without having the six-month ramp up in understanding the relevant code base.
baddox 6y ago
> Does anyone disagree that Apple and Google have the right to just go "this app store business is just not worth the headaches, we're gonna shut it all down." There might be legal issues with drastically reducing the functionality of devices after they've been sold, but I would imagine they could do this for new devices going forward. I think this points out a subtlety in the arguments of most people who take Epic's side in this struggle: it appears that Apple could avoid these allegations of anticompetitive behavior by either increasing or decreasing the restrictions placed on third-party software distribution. That's a little bizarre, but it surely must be the case, unless the argument is that all electronics manufacturers must provide an easy way to owners to run third-party software (think game console, GPS devices, stereo receivers, car infotainment systems, the microcontroller in every switching power supply, etc.). Presumably the response to this subtlety is that "iPhones are general-purpose computers, but game consoles, etc. aren't," but I disagree with that both in theory and in practice based on what buyers of these devices expect to be able to do with the devices.
- sjy 6y ago
  > it surely must be the case, unless the argument is that all electronics manufacturers must provide an easy way to owners to run third-party software Antitrust has always been about big companies abusing market power. These concepts are contestable, which means the law can only be enforced through expensive, time-consuming trials, but it doesn’t mean that the law is meaningless or not useful. The laws against assault and murder are also quite contestable in borderline cases of self-defence, but they are useful, and it’s easy to generate examples where the law is clearly not applicable just as with antitrust.
SkyBelow 6y ago
>Does anyone disagree that Apple and Google have the right to just go "this app store business is just not worth the headaches, we're gonna shut it all down." Are they offering to allow a replacement to enter in or effectively bricking devices (well soft brick, as they can still call and text)?
- pneill 6y ago
  They wouldn't brick your device as the native apps would always be available. In my mind, I'm toying over how committed Apple is to the customer experience. Apple always talks about the user experience first and if they honestly believe that a free and open store is a bad experience (just for the sake of discussion accept this point), would they consider ending the app store (say for all new devices) because they'd rather give a "great" experience rather than being forced to give one they believe is substandard. Essentially protect their brand. I don't see Google ever doing something like that. But Apple... I dunno.
devit 6y ago
Google and Apple closing the stores would be a fantastic outcome. The iPhone would no longer support third-party apps, and thus most iOS users will move to Android, and on Android, everyone will be familiar with installing apps from websites. So in that world, all you need to do is develop only for Android and put up the .apk file on your website (using some sort of pre-made e-commerce software of your choice if you need to sell it), thereby getting rid of all censorship, friction, issues, rules, 30% fees, etc.
stale2002 6y ago
> Does anyone disagree that Apple and Google have the right to just go "this app store business is just not worth the headaches, we're gonna shut it all down." Depends on what you mean by that. If you are saying that they have a right to not run any of their apps stores anymore, then sure. But I do not agree that they should have to right to force me, by law to not install other app stores on my phone. If I bought the phone, then I should be allowed to do whatever I want with my own property, including installing other app stores that 3rd parties voluntarily offer me. > think these app stores are some kind of public commons. It is not about public commons. Instead, it is about physical property that I purchased, the device, that I own. > Who do you think customers will blame when someone uses an alternative payment approach to steal from customers I don't care. That is not my problem. That is not an excuse for apple or google to tell me what I can and cannot do with my own property. > What's a customers recourse If customers don't like a ceratain app store, or solution, then they don't have to use it. I am not trying to force other people to do anything with their own phones. I just want Apple to stop doing this to my devices, when they, for example, sue people who offer repair services.
- pneill 6y ago
  > If customers don't like a ceratain app store, or solution, then they don't have to use it. I am trying to force other people to do anything with their own phones. I just want Apple to stop doing this to my devices, when they, for example, sue people who offer repair services. This is an interesting answer. It sounds like you're not an app developer, so why do you care if Apple takes 30% cut of the developers app? Or is it that you're concerned about apps you like not being available due to contract disputes? Could you elaborate?
  - stale2002 6y ago
    > It sounds like you're not an app developer, so why do you care if Apple takes 30% cut of the developers app? Because those costs inevitably either get passed down to the consumer, or mean that there are less resources to make the game, which results in a worse experience for me, the customer. I don't want Apple to force everyone to give them a cut, because that is real money that would either stay in my pocket otherwise, or would provide more resources to game companies. More money that stays in developers pockets means that they are incentivized to make more games or spend more resources on them. Or it can result in more developers entering the space, because there is more money overall to get. Apple isn't providing any value to me here, that I could not get elsewhere, if there were competing app stores. I don't want them to force everyone to give them that money. (And no, I dont' accept the argument that Apple's app store would always be significantly better than everyone else's, so much so that they deserve a full 30%, automatically. If they end up being better, thats fine, but I still want competition, and for other app stores to be able to compete fairly)
stock_toaster 6y ago
> "this app store business is just not worth the headaches, we're gonna shut it all down." Maybe something like "turns out games aren't a great fit for the app store." then they just boot the entire games category off the app store and only allow games on apple arcade.
ksk 6y ago
>Does anyone disagree that Apple and Google have the right to just go "this app store business is just not worth the headaches, we're gonna shut it all down." Its not a headache, it's basically a money grab at this point, 30% of sales of a digital-only product. They're laughing all the way to the bank. >And my second question: Who do you think customers will blame when someone uses an alternative payment approach to steal from customers? Google/Apple? The app provider? Themselves? >Third question: What's a customers recourse once they are the victims of fraud or simply want a refund for whatever reason? How easy will it be for them to reason about what to do? There are many ways to build payment platforms without letting Apple rob 30% of your sales. For e.g. Paypal has consumer protection polices. Buyers can dispute transactions/services, etc.
weixiyen 6y ago
As long as they allow for users to install applications onto their phone, including other stores, then I don't think anyone will have a problem. Every pre-installed Apple app has a better 3rd-party alternative, it would be no different for the store. Undoubtedly if Apple allowed other companies to handle app discovery, the experience could be one or two order of magnitudes better, for both consumers and developers.
donmcronald 6y ago
> And my second question: Who do you think customers will blame when someone uses an alternative payment approach to steal from customers? Google/Apple? The app provider? Themselves? They would blame the person that ripped them off. If I take my car to a local garage and get defrauded it would be stupid to blame the car manufacturer. > Third question: What's a customers recourse once they are the victims of fraud or simply want a refund for whatever reason? How easy will it be for them to reason about what to do? You call the bank and say "hey, I have a fraudulent charge on my credit card" and they give you your money back. There's zero liability for the user. Plus, I'd way rather ask my bank to do a chargeback against a no name scammer than against Apple, Google, Amazon, or Microsoft. What happens if your kid gets scammed via IAPs, spends $5k, and Apple sides with the developer? What's the result of a chargeback against Apple if you're massively invested in their platform? Online payment processing is a solved problem. I think things like Apple Pay are fantastic as a system we can opt into, but I'd much rather have the current system of credit card processors with all the regulation and consumer protection that comes along with it.

by pneill 6y ago

blackoil 6y ago

They should blame store/app provider. E-commerce over the web is pretty well established, don't think people blame Windows/Chrome when some shady site frauds them.

pneill 6y ago
Logically, you're 100% correct. But I don't think most folks will reason it that way. Do you think a senior citizen will follow that reasoning? And then how will they contact the provider? What is the provider doesn't respond (for the case of simple refund request)?

chillacy 6y ago

Presumably other companies would run app stores and do things like refunds. After all there are already apps where you can buy stuff on your phone not through the app store (Audible, AirBnb, Amazon, etc). Why are apps any different?

pneill 6y ago
Yeah, but how does Apple/Google determine if an app developer has the capability to do it and verify that they're consistently doing it? Or are we saying that only big companies with verified and known payment platforms can use their own payment system? And then, how many bad experiences for these types of purchases (or articles about bad experiences) will customers tolerate before they stop trusting in-app or third party purchases? One? A hundred?
- chillacy 6y ago
  I'm sure people have had bad experiences on AirBnB and Amazon. I don't think Apple should try to curate Amazon's reviews or vet AirBnB hosts. Or a real life analogy: every year someone drinks bleach and dies. I'd rather we didn't make bleach completely illegal. Maybe Apple can do what the Mac does and have some prompts like "hey danger ahead".

Apocryphon 6y ago

Apple and Google do not have that right, because as many headaches there are involved, killing their services cash cows would be abandoning their fiduciary duty to investors in an almost litigation-worthy boneheaded move.

baddox 6y ago
If it poses a threat of major antitrust action, then perhaps their fiduciary duty would be to shut down the app stores.
pneill 6y ago
Not sure I follow you. Do you mean, they won't do it because it makes a lot of money or do you mean they straight up don't have the right because of the economic platform they've created benefits a lot of people. Just to be clear, I'm just trying to understand if folks think the app store is a public commons or is it private property? Lots of the comments on this issue imply that the store is a public commons. And I'm wondering if that's a common view.
- Apocryphon 6y ago
  Because it makes a lot of money, Apple doesn't have the right to engage in such a self-sabotaging move because they are bound to their investors, who would be mad at them willingly destroying such a revenue stream. So debates about commons aside, the question is somewhat ludicrous because it's about as fanciful and applicable as "What if Microsoft released the Windows source code?"
  - prewett 6y ago
    A bit off-topic, but frankly, I think trying to use the Windows source code would be a liability for everyone but something like WINE. Just building it would be a trick, last I heard a full build of Windows took an entire day. I'm guessing it wasn't your beefy Dell machine building it, either. I'll bet there are so many pieces and custom tools and forgotten necessary settings on build machines that building it would be a nightmare. And then there is the test suite. I wouldn't trust a custom build of Windows, who knows all the subtle settings here and there that are necessary to get the same result. I think Microsoft could put the Windows source on GitHub tomorrow and the only thing that would happen is that they'd get a lot of bug bounties and an increase in the number of people they could hire who could just step in and start working without having the six-month ramp up in understanding the relevant code base.

baddox 6y ago

> Does anyone disagree that Apple and Google have the right to just go "this app store business is just not worth the headaches, we're gonna shut it all down." There might be legal issues with drastically reducing the functionality of devices after they've been sold, but I would imagine they could do this for new devices going forward. I think this points out a subtlety in the arguments of most people who take Epic's side in this struggle: it appears that Apple could avoid these allegations of anticompetitive behavior by either increasing or decreasing the restrictions placed on third-party software distribution. That's a little bizarre, but it surely must be the case, unless the argument is that all electronics manufacturers must provide an easy way to owners to run third-party software (think game console, GPS devices, stereo receivers, car infotainment systems, the microcontroller in every switching power supply, etc.). Presumably the response to this subtlety is that "iPhones are general-purpose computers, but game consoles, etc. aren't," but I disagree with that both in theory and in practice based on what buyers of these devices expect to be able to do with the devices.

sjy 6y ago
> it surely must be the case, unless the argument is that all electronics manufacturers must provide an easy way to owners to run third-party software Antitrust has always been about big companies abusing market power. These concepts are contestable, which means the law can only be enforced through expensive, time-consuming trials, but it doesn’t mean that the law is meaningless or not useful. The laws against assault and murder are also quite contestable in borderline cases of self-defence, but they are useful, and it’s easy to generate examples where the law is clearly not applicable just as with antitrust.

SkyBelow 6y ago

>Does anyone disagree that Apple and Google have the right to just go "this app store business is just not worth the headaches, we're gonna shut it all down." Are they offering to allow a replacement to enter in or effectively bricking devices (well soft brick, as they can still call and text)?

pneill 6y ago
They wouldn't brick your device as the native apps would always be available. In my mind, I'm toying over how committed Apple is to the customer experience. Apple always talks about the user experience first and if they honestly believe that a free and open store is a bad experience (just for the sake of discussion accept this point), would they consider ending the app store (say for all new devices) because they'd rather give a "great" experience rather than being forced to give one they believe is substandard. Essentially protect their brand. I don't see Google ever doing something like that. But Apple... I dunno.

devit 6y ago

Google and Apple closing the stores would be a fantastic outcome. The iPhone would no longer support third-party apps, and thus most iOS users will move to Android, and on Android, everyone will be familiar with installing apps from websites. So in that world, all you need to do is develop only for Android and put up the .apk file on your website (using some sort of pre-made e-commerce software of your choice if you need to sell it), thereby getting rid of all censorship, friction, issues, rules, 30% fees, etc.

stale2002 6y ago

> Does anyone disagree that Apple and Google have the right to just go "this app store business is just not worth the headaches, we're gonna shut it all down." Depends on what you mean by that. If you are saying that they have a right to not run any of their apps stores anymore, then sure. But I do not agree that they should have to right to force me, by law to not install other app stores on my phone. If I bought the phone, then I should be allowed to do whatever I want with my own property, including installing other app stores that 3rd parties voluntarily offer me. > think these app stores are some kind of public commons. It is not about public commons. Instead, it is about physical property that I purchased, the device, that I own. > Who do you think customers will blame when someone uses an alternative payment approach to steal from customers I don't care. That is not my problem. That is not an excuse for apple or google to tell me what I can and cannot do with my own property. > What's a customers recourse If customers don't like a ceratain app store, or solution, then they don't have to use it. I am not trying to force other people to do anything with their own phones. I just want Apple to stop doing this to my devices, when they, for example, sue people who offer repair services.

pneill 6y ago
> If customers don't like a ceratain app store, or solution, then they don't have to use it. I am trying to force other people to do anything with their own phones. I just want Apple to stop doing this to my devices, when they, for example, sue people who offer repair services. This is an interesting answer. It sounds like you're not an app developer, so why do you care if Apple takes 30% cut of the developers app? Or is it that you're concerned about apps you like not being available due to contract disputes? Could you elaborate?
- stale2002 6y ago
  > It sounds like you're not an app developer, so why do you care if Apple takes 30% cut of the developers app? Because those costs inevitably either get passed down to the consumer, or mean that there are less resources to make the game, which results in a worse experience for me, the customer. I don't want Apple to force everyone to give them a cut, because that is real money that would either stay in my pocket otherwise, or would provide more resources to game companies. More money that stays in developers pockets means that they are incentivized to make more games or spend more resources on them. Or it can result in more developers entering the space, because there is more money overall to get. Apple isn't providing any value to me here, that I could not get elsewhere, if there were competing app stores. I don't want them to force everyone to give them that money. (And no, I dont' accept the argument that Apple's app store would always be significantly better than everyone else's, so much so that they deserve a full 30%, automatically. If they end up being better, thats fine, but I still want competition, and for other app stores to be able to compete fairly)

stock_toaster 6y ago

> "this app store business is just not worth the headaches, we're gonna shut it all down." Maybe something like "turns out games aren't a great fit for the app store." then they just boot the entire games category off the app store and only allow games on apple arcade.

ksk 6y ago

>Does anyone disagree that Apple and Google have the right to just go "this app store business is just not worth the headaches, we're gonna shut it all down." Its not a headache, it's basically a money grab at this point, 30% of sales of a digital-only product. They're laughing all the way to the bank. >And my second question: Who do you think customers will blame when someone uses an alternative payment approach to steal from customers? Google/Apple? The app provider? Themselves? >Third question: What's a customers recourse once they are the victims of fraud or simply want a refund for whatever reason? How easy will it be for them to reason about what to do? There are many ways to build payment platforms without letting Apple rob 30% of your sales. For e.g. Paypal has consumer protection polices. Buyers can dispute transactions/services, etc.

weixiyen 6y ago

As long as they allow for users to install applications onto their phone, including other stores, then I don't think anyone will have a problem. Every pre-installed Apple app has a better 3rd-party alternative, it would be no different for the store. Undoubtedly if Apple allowed other companies to handle app discovery, the experience could be one or two order of magnitudes better, for both consumers and developers.

donmcronald 6y ago

> And my second question: Who do you think customers will blame when someone uses an alternative payment approach to steal from customers? Google/Apple? The app provider? Themselves? They would blame the person that ripped them off. If I take my car to a local garage and get defrauded it would be stupid to blame the car manufacturer. > Third question: What's a customers recourse once they are the victims of fraud or simply want a refund for whatever reason? How easy will it be for them to reason about what to do? You call the bank and say "hey, I have a fraudulent charge on my credit card" and they give you your money back. There's zero liability for the user. Plus, I'd way rather ask my bank to do a chargeback against a no name scammer than against Apple, Google, Amazon, or Microsoft. What happens if your kid gets scammed via IAPs, spends $5k, and Apple sides with the developer? What's the result of a chargeback against Apple if you're massively invested in their platform? Online payment processing is a solved problem. I think things like Apple Pay are fantastic as a system we can opt into, but I'd much rather have the current system of credit card processors with all the regulation and consumer protection that comes along with it.