6 ms·

Heh, I don't see anything dynamic here. You basically choose between two prison cells instead of having an open market where the platform isn't more than a side

Heh, I don't see anything dynamic here. You basically choose between two prison cells instead of having an open market where the platform isn't more than a side note. You can just have no block owners at all. Having two competing kings fighting over the throne isn't "dynamic" democracy.

dividedbyzero 6y ago
What would "dynamic" look like for mobile platforms and app stores?
m12k 6y ago
If Epic wins their lawsuit and Apple is forced to allow sideloading/other app stores, is that a move toward a more open market?
dgellow 6y ago
Let's say Epic get what they want, that would open iOS to competing app stores and/or would make rules more flexible regarding available payment systems and/or would allow applications to be side loaded. That's more dynamism, market forces can then play their role. I understand that you may want an even more open market, but that's a quite different topic. > Having two competing kings fighting over the throne isn't "dynamic" democracy. That would be a more dynamic kingship than just having one king with full control over the kingdom. I'm not sure what you want to say here. Dynamism doesn't transform the kingdom in a democratic system. Nor is Apple or Epic part of a democratic battle. You seem to be conflating a bunch of things IMHO.
- ericmay 6y ago
  I think what you’d see is not much in the way of price decreases or increased availability of apps, but more dark patterns, malware, and anti-privacy measures. Apple basically collectively bargains for iPhone users via the App Store. Privacy features, sign-in with Apple, limiting tracking abuse, privacy “Nutrition Facts” and other items will go out the window. Apple will have those in their App Store, but users will make the trade off with privacy to play Fortnite or download a new social media app. Apple makes it so that trade off doesn’t have to happen. It’s all around awful. I really hope Apple wins this court case.
  - hhjinks 6y ago
    I sure love having a faceless trillion-dollar company making choices for me to try to keep me and my device safe.
    - ericmay 6y ago
      Well, they have a good enough track record so far. If you feel the iPhone is unsafe, you're free to buy a different phone or not use one at all. Why would Apple be less incentivized than another company, like Epic, to protect your data? Apple sells the iPhone and markets it toward pro-privacy and security. Going against that is not in their own best interest. It's in Epic's interest to break through that, because then they can use dark patterns and break privacy restrictions (as other companies will and intend to do). Again, it's no surprise that as Apple has been more user-focused and privacy-focused in their continued iPhone and iOS development that developers are feeling the squeeze when they want to use dark patterns, so naturally they'll try and break out of that so they can go back to their old bad habits again.
      - cycloptic 6y ago
        >Why would Apple be less incentivized than another company, like Epic, to protect your data? Probably because their store doesn't have to compete? I would say they really are not doing a good job at this considering their track record contains plenty of dark patterns, privacy violations, tracking, data mining, censorship, and so on. If you don't believe me I can provide plenty of examples. The situation might be marginally better than a low-end Android device that typically comes loaded with OEM malware, but that's not saying much.
        medbrane 6y ago
        They do a lot better than a hypothetical Facebook store, which Epic suit would make possible.
      - Apocryphon 6y ago
        I would rather that the industry adopt higher standards for itself or the government play a regulatory role (or that everyone spontaneously develops a higher level of morality and social responsibility). Putting all of our trust into one corporation, no matter how big its market cap, is just asking for a single point of failure. Not to mention, Apple can always change its attitudes toward security, and then there wouldn’t be anyone left to speak for you.
- raxxorrax 6y ago
  I was hinting at the possibility of having a platform where there is no central app store to even allow such "dynamics" to unfold. > I'm not sure what you want to say here That the Apple platform with the store model has significant disadvantages.
  - dgellow 6y ago
    Ok, but do we agree that Epic getting what they want would result in a more open platform than what we currently have? Because the alternative to what Epic want (so the current situation) isn't a completely open platform but one where Apple is the only boss and can do almost whatever they want. Having more bosses in competition for parts of the market is an improvement toward a more open system.
    - raxxorrax 6y ago
      Maybe, I will wait for the result. But if the topic is "dynamism", I can easily manage my expectations. It just feels like someone is shitting on your plate and tells you, that it at least already looks like chocolate pudding.
      - dgellow 6y ago
        Fair enough.
    - treis 6y ago
      We've seen on Android that the practical effects of competing app stores are basically zero. There's too much advantage to controlling the OS and being the default. Epic getting a store on iOS is likely to be a moral victory at best. The effective solution is stopping dominance in one area from spilling over into another. Can't use iOS control to gain control of app sales and you can't use control of app sales to gain control of payments.
      - lukeschlather 6y ago
        The fact that F-Droid exists is a huge deal. Yeah, not everyone uses it. There isn't an app for everything (by design) but the apps are way more trustworthy than anything you can get out of the iOS or Android stores.
simonh 6y ago
Android phones come with multiple stores, you can side load apps and you could launch your own store any time you like. You could launch a new phone without the Google Play store, such phones exist anyway though. The plain fact is that isn't what the vast majority of customers want. They have time and again showed that what they want is one place where they can all get their apps, and that will also be on their next phone. Google didn't decide that for them, nor did Samsung which has it's own store on it's phones. It's what customers want and have chosen, whether you like that or not. Yes Google used unsavoury practices, they ran afoul of the EU and were fined Billions, but that's a footnote. We'd be where we are anyway, and stoping those anticompetitive practices hasn't slowed down the consolidation because this is driven by user preference.
jayd16 6y ago
You'd probably see cross buy from Google and the Amazon store on iOS so probably at least 4 stores on iOS would pop up.
Slartie 6y ago
> Having two competing kings fighting over the throne isn't "dynamic" democracy. a) it is more dynamic than a situation with one king just sitting on his laurels b) this is not about democracy, this is about competition on markets

dividedbyzero 6y ago

What would "dynamic" look like for mobile platforms and app stores?

m12k 6y ago

If Epic wins their lawsuit and Apple is forced to allow sideloading/other app stores, is that a move toward a more open market?

dgellow 6y ago

Let's say Epic get what they want, that would open iOS to competing app stores and/or would make rules more flexible regarding available payment systems and/or would allow applications to be side loaded. That's more dynamism, market forces can then play their role. I understand that you may want an even more open market, but that's a quite different topic. > Having two competing kings fighting over the throne isn't "dynamic" democracy. That would be a more dynamic kingship than just having one king with full control over the kingdom. I'm not sure what you want to say here. Dynamism doesn't transform the kingdom in a democratic system. Nor is Apple or Epic part of a democratic battle. You seem to be conflating a bunch of things IMHO.

ericmay 6y ago
I think what you’d see is not much in the way of price decreases or increased availability of apps, but more dark patterns, malware, and anti-privacy measures. Apple basically collectively bargains for iPhone users via the App Store. Privacy features, sign-in with Apple, limiting tracking abuse, privacy “Nutrition Facts” and other items will go out the window. Apple will have those in their App Store, but users will make the trade off with privacy to play Fortnite or download a new social media app. Apple makes it so that trade off doesn’t have to happen. It’s all around awful. I really hope Apple wins this court case.
- hhjinks 6y ago
  I sure love having a faceless trillion-dollar company making choices for me to try to keep me and my device safe.
  - ericmay 6y ago
    Well, they have a good enough track record so far. If you feel the iPhone is unsafe, you're free to buy a different phone or not use one at all. Why would Apple be less incentivized than another company, like Epic, to protect your data? Apple sells the iPhone and markets it toward pro-privacy and security. Going against that is not in their own best interest. It's in Epic's interest to break through that, because then they can use dark patterns and break privacy restrictions (as other companies will and intend to do). Again, it's no surprise that as Apple has been more user-focused and privacy-focused in their continued iPhone and iOS development that developers are feeling the squeeze when they want to use dark patterns, so naturally they'll try and break out of that so they can go back to their old bad habits again.
    - cycloptic 6y ago
      >Why would Apple be less incentivized than another company, like Epic, to protect your data? Probably because their store doesn't have to compete? I would say they really are not doing a good job at this considering their track record contains plenty of dark patterns, privacy violations, tracking, data mining, censorship, and so on. If you don't believe me I can provide plenty of examples. The situation might be marginally better than a low-end Android device that typically comes loaded with OEM malware, but that's not saying much.
      - medbrane 6y ago
        They do a lot better than a hypothetical Facebook store, which Epic suit would make possible.
    - Apocryphon 6y ago
      I would rather that the industry adopt higher standards for itself or the government play a regulatory role (or that everyone spontaneously develops a higher level of morality and social responsibility). Putting all of our trust into one corporation, no matter how big its market cap, is just asking for a single point of failure. Not to mention, Apple can always change its attitudes toward security, and then there wouldn’t be anyone left to speak for you.
raxxorrax 6y ago
I was hinting at the possibility of having a platform where there is no central app store to even allow such "dynamics" to unfold. > I'm not sure what you want to say here That the Apple platform with the store model has significant disadvantages.
- dgellow 6y ago
  Ok, but do we agree that Epic getting what they want would result in a more open platform than what we currently have? Because the alternative to what Epic want (so the current situation) isn't a completely open platform but one where Apple is the only boss and can do almost whatever they want. Having more bosses in competition for parts of the market is an improvement toward a more open system.
  - raxxorrax 6y ago
    Maybe, I will wait for the result. But if the topic is "dynamism", I can easily manage my expectations. It just feels like someone is shitting on your plate and tells you, that it at least already looks like chocolate pudding.
    - dgellow 6y ago
      Fair enough.
  - treis 6y ago
    We've seen on Android that the practical effects of competing app stores are basically zero. There's too much advantage to controlling the OS and being the default. Epic getting a store on iOS is likely to be a moral victory at best. The effective solution is stopping dominance in one area from spilling over into another. Can't use iOS control to gain control of app sales and you can't use control of app sales to gain control of payments.
    - lukeschlather 6y ago
      The fact that F-Droid exists is a huge deal. Yeah, not everyone uses it. There isn't an app for everything (by design) but the apps are way more trustworthy than anything you can get out of the iOS or Android stores.

simonh 6y ago

Android phones come with multiple stores, you can side load apps and you could launch your own store any time you like. You could launch a new phone without the Google Play store, such phones exist anyway though. The plain fact is that isn't what the vast majority of customers want. They have time and again showed that what they want is one place where they can all get their apps, and that will also be on their next phone. Google didn't decide that for them, nor did Samsung which has it's own store on it's phones. It's what customers want and have chosen, whether you like that or not. Yes Google used unsavoury practices, they ran afoul of the EU and were fined Billions, but that's a footnote. We'd be where we are anyway, and stoping those anticompetitive practices hasn't slowed down the consolidation because this is driven by user preference.

jayd16 6y ago

You'd probably see cross buy from Google and the Amazon store on iOS so probably at least 4 stores on iOS would pop up.

Slartie 6y ago

> Having two competing kings fighting over the throne isn't "dynamic" democracy. a) it is more dynamic than a situation with one king just sitting on his laurels b) this is not about democracy, this is about competition on markets