4 ms·

The bargaining is between users and developers. Developers have increasingly taken adversarial positions with their users, who have accepted increasingly onerou

by wcarey 6y ago

The bargaining is between users and developers. Developers have increasingly taken adversarial positions with their users, who have accepted increasingly onerous terms and privacy policies because individual users are not in a good bargaining position. Apple, in contrast, is in a bargaining position to negotiate terms of use on behalf of its users with developers. For example, if I purchase a subscription to a language learning app on an iOS device, my ability to seamlessly cancel that subscription has been collectively bargained by Apple (via the terms of service of their payment processing system). That's valuable to me, particularly given the absurd difficulty of canceling subscriptions that are not collectively bargained like gym memberships. How would Apple impose that same term of use, that subscriptions can be cancelled on device with one click, for a sideloaded app? If they can't do that, developers would offer their app only via sideloading so as to be able to take advantage of that stream of revenue, like gyms. Now there's less competition for language learning apps in the first party app store, and I, a user of that store, suffer. That's not to say there aren't tradeoffs for that collective bargaining; there are. As you say, we have much less control over iOS devices than we've historically had over our computing devices. Similarly, workers who collectively bargain have much less control over their terms of employment than workers who individually negotiate. But for many workers (and many users), that tradeoff is a good one. Apple is currently the only organization offering it.

toyg 6y ago
> Developers have increasingly taken adversarial positions with their users And who do we have to thank for that turn? Apple's culture that "we know better" is a good part of that problem. Developers want to be Apple, and Apple is pretty abusive towards their users. They take the occasional pro-user stance where it suits them, but overall it's pretty clear that the only institutional interest for Apple is Apple's own bottom line. Here you're effectively defending an absolutist monarch: he can take a good decision here and there, maybe even give you a decade or two of peace and prosperity, but in the long run his family will inevitably do what is good for them, not for the country. Democracy is messy, unstable, often dangerous, but in the long run is more sustainable for the ecosystem at large.
- wcarey 6y ago
  I'd say that I'm less defending absolute monarchy, and more defending the rule of law against the Hobbesean state of nature, with all its caprice and cruelty. For example, if Apple conducted plebiscites of its users and used those plebiscites in informing its collective bargaining with developers, I think that'd be fine. That would force Apple to articulate the value proposition of the positions it takes.
  - toyg 6y ago
    I would object less to that for sure, but you have to admit that there is absolutely zero chance of that ever happening: Apple never relinquishes control. The closest to it, ironically, is to go through the actual legal system and see what judges, tasked with interpreting the people's will encoded in laws, will say. Something that they will now have to do, probably several times, until they accept that there is an easier way.
- pjmlp 6y ago
  Plenty of developers love Apple ways, since the Mac classic. And it is hardly any different from any other platform. Classical PCs are the exception here due to IBM's failure to secure their golden eggs, had they succeed and PCs would have been just as like. It is no surprise that with the rise of laptop and tablets, the classical desktop PC is an species facing extinction, with pizza boxes for server room being the only ones left.
  - toyg 6y ago
    I shiver to think what a IBM success "to secure their golden eggs" in the way Apple does today, would have meant for the world at large. P2P or the browser would have never been invented, you wouldn't have been allowed to install anything without IBM approving... brrr
    - pjmlp 6y ago
      PCs only turned out different from any other siloed computing platform thanks to IBM not being able to sue Compaq. As for how it would be like, just like Acorn, Atari, Amiga and Apple were at the time.
simion314 6y ago
Is your gym app not available on Google store but only as a side load? Because you are imagining that because soem developers are shit then all are shit. When I was young I could create small apps and games and share with my friends. But the future seems to be "think at the idiots that might side load malware" so our children will need to create developers accounts, provide IDs , buy certificates just to develop and share some games.
- wcarey 6y ago
  Broadly gym subscriptions aren't handled through apps. I'm assuming that there will be a tragedy of the commons, something Apple has only been moderately effective at preventing, that will reduce the quality of terms-of-service for users. I too used to create small apps and games and share them with my friends. I still do that on a headless raspberry pi, which is a vastly superior environment than the one I had access to as a child. As the economic value of data on computers rises, I think we'll see a split between the device you use to conduct modern digital life and the device you do "old fashioned" computer stuff on. For people inclined to tinker, there will be platforms that enable that. But you won't do your banking on that platform because, as you say, idiots will side load malware. I've certainly made that split in my life (and in my classroom where we use the raspi as a teaching computer and every student has root on their own box), and it works out really well.
  - simion314 6y ago
    Now imagine my son making a small game and wants to share it with his cousin but now the cousin needs to run Linux to run code not approved by a corporation.(you need to not forget people that might not be rich and can afford many different devices). Anyway do you have any examples (more then 1) of companies that ONLY offer side loading because they are evil and want to trick the customer (with subscriptions or to steal data).
    - wcarey 6y ago
      As I’ve said, tradeoffs. The raspis I’m talking about run about $100 for a complete system. Not nothing, but accessible to many people in Apple’s target demographic. They’re ideally suited for what you’re aiming at. One example jumps to mind - wasn’t Facebook running a side loaded VPN that was doing some unsavory things until Apple banned it? I think the place to look for that sort of thing right now would be companies abusing the enterprise development system.
dgellow 6y ago
I think that you’re reversing the power dynamics. I agree with your first sentence but in a different way: bargaining should be between users and developers. Here Apple isn’t a benevolent user collective, they have complete control over the entire pipeline, use it to force their rules on both users and developers. Epic, Spotify and others DO WANT to negotiate with their users instead of being forced by Apple. If someone is trying to negotiate, it is Epic & Co. Apple refuses any negotiation, told them repeatedly to follow their own rules. Epic thinks that there is a case to make that Apple has too much power and control and the balance should tip a bit more to developers. And that’s where we are now. I don’t think that the collective bargaining is a good analogy, but if you want to go with this, Epic and others ARE the bargaining collective, while Apple is the mighty entity that tries to shutdown anything remotely threatening to their current business model.
- Spivak 6y ago
  > bargaining should be between users and developers i.e. the power dynamic should be flipped so that developers have more leverage. This is the core issue. Users have little power on their own and are largely unorganized. So software that's useful to users enables developers to get away with many many abuses before large swaths of users abandon the product. Right now Apple has an extreme amount of leverage over developers and is rich enough to not even notice if they lose even large companies as publishers. So yes, Apple has been protecting their business model, but the secondary effect is that user's have been benefiting hugely from this since Apple makes more money when users are happy.
yyyk 6y ago
>my ability to seamlessly cancel that subscription has been collectively bargained by Apple Bargained for Apple's benefit, not yours. The end result is that if you ever for any reason want to manage the subscription without an Apple device, you can't. Which directly feeds into the premium they charge you for their devices. It also means that the vendor is forced to implement Apple Payments, and the surcharge is ultimately paid by you. You may have lost money due to subscriptions* , but you are definitely losing money to Apple. * It's easy where I live to call the credit company and block the charge, and the credit company doesn't take 30%.
- wcarey 6y ago
  Perhaps it benefits Apple, but it also benefits me in ways I’m happy to pay for (and would be unable to pay for absent the collective bargaining).

by wcarey 6y ago

toyg 6y ago

> Developers have increasingly taken adversarial positions with their users And who do we have to thank for that turn? Apple's culture that "we know better" is a good part of that problem. Developers want to be Apple, and Apple is pretty abusive towards their users. They take the occasional pro-user stance where it suits them, but overall it's pretty clear that the only institutional interest for Apple is Apple's own bottom line. Here you're effectively defending an absolutist monarch: he can take a good decision here and there, maybe even give you a decade or two of peace and prosperity, but in the long run his family will inevitably do what is good for them, not for the country. Democracy is messy, unstable, often dangerous, but in the long run is more sustainable for the ecosystem at large.

wcarey 6y ago
I'd say that I'm less defending absolute monarchy, and more defending the rule of law against the Hobbesean state of nature, with all its caprice and cruelty. For example, if Apple conducted plebiscites of its users and used those plebiscites in informing its collective bargaining with developers, I think that'd be fine. That would force Apple to articulate the value proposition of the positions it takes.
- toyg 6y ago
  I would object less to that for sure, but you have to admit that there is absolutely zero chance of that ever happening: Apple never relinquishes control. The closest to it, ironically, is to go through the actual legal system and see what judges, tasked with interpreting the people's will encoded in laws, will say. Something that they will now have to do, probably several times, until they accept that there is an easier way.
pjmlp 6y ago
Plenty of developers love Apple ways, since the Mac classic. And it is hardly any different from any other platform. Classical PCs are the exception here due to IBM's failure to secure their golden eggs, had they succeed and PCs would have been just as like. It is no surprise that with the rise of laptop and tablets, the classical desktop PC is an species facing extinction, with pizza boxes for server room being the only ones left.
- toyg 6y ago
  I shiver to think what a IBM success "to secure their golden eggs" in the way Apple does today, would have meant for the world at large. P2P or the browser would have never been invented, you wouldn't have been allowed to install anything without IBM approving... brrr
  - pjmlp 6y ago
    PCs only turned out different from any other siloed computing platform thanks to IBM not being able to sue Compaq. As for how it would be like, just like Acorn, Atari, Amiga and Apple were at the time.

simion314 6y ago

Is your gym app not available on Google store but only as a side load? Because you are imagining that because soem developers are shit then all are shit. When I was young I could create small apps and games and share with my friends. But the future seems to be "think at the idiots that might side load malware" so our children will need to create developers accounts, provide IDs , buy certificates just to develop and share some games.

wcarey 6y ago
Broadly gym subscriptions aren't handled through apps. I'm assuming that there will be a tragedy of the commons, something Apple has only been moderately effective at preventing, that will reduce the quality of terms-of-service for users. I too used to create small apps and games and share them with my friends. I still do that on a headless raspberry pi, which is a vastly superior environment than the one I had access to as a child. As the economic value of data on computers rises, I think we'll see a split between the device you use to conduct modern digital life and the device you do "old fashioned" computer stuff on. For people inclined to tinker, there will be platforms that enable that. But you won't do your banking on that platform because, as you say, idiots will side load malware. I've certainly made that split in my life (and in my classroom where we use the raspi as a teaching computer and every student has root on their own box), and it works out really well.
- simion314 6y ago
  Now imagine my son making a small game and wants to share it with his cousin but now the cousin needs to run Linux to run code not approved by a corporation.(you need to not forget people that might not be rich and can afford many different devices). Anyway do you have any examples (more then 1) of companies that ONLY offer side loading because they are evil and want to trick the customer (with subscriptions or to steal data).
  - wcarey 6y ago
    As I’ve said, tradeoffs. The raspis I’m talking about run about $100 for a complete system. Not nothing, but accessible to many people in Apple’s target demographic. They’re ideally suited for what you’re aiming at. One example jumps to mind - wasn’t Facebook running a side loaded VPN that was doing some unsavory things until Apple banned it? I think the place to look for that sort of thing right now would be companies abusing the enterprise development system.

dgellow 6y ago

I think that you’re reversing the power dynamics. I agree with your first sentence but in a different way: bargaining should be between users and developers. Here Apple isn’t a benevolent user collective, they have complete control over the entire pipeline, use it to force their rules on both users and developers. Epic, Spotify and others DO WANT to negotiate with their users instead of being forced by Apple. If someone is trying to negotiate, it is Epic & Co. Apple refuses any negotiation, told them repeatedly to follow their own rules. Epic thinks that there is a case to make that Apple has too much power and control and the balance should tip a bit more to developers. And that’s where we are now. I don’t think that the collective bargaining is a good analogy, but if you want to go with this, Epic and others ARE the bargaining collective, while Apple is the mighty entity that tries to shutdown anything remotely threatening to their current business model.

Spivak 6y ago
> bargaining should be between users and developers i.e. the power dynamic should be flipped so that developers have more leverage. This is the core issue. Users have little power on their own and are largely unorganized. So software that's useful to users enables developers to get away with many many abuses before large swaths of users abandon the product. Right now Apple has an extreme amount of leverage over developers and is rich enough to not even notice if they lose even large companies as publishers. So yes, Apple has been protecting their business model, but the secondary effect is that user's have been benefiting hugely from this since Apple makes more money when users are happy.

yyyk 6y ago

>my ability to seamlessly cancel that subscription has been collectively bargained by Apple Bargained for Apple's benefit, not yours. The end result is that if you ever for any reason want to manage the subscription without an Apple device, you can't. Which directly feeds into the premium they charge you for their devices. It also means that the vendor is forced to implement Apple Payments, and the surcharge is ultimately paid by you. You may have lost money due to subscriptions* , but you are definitely losing money to Apple. * It's easy where I live to call the credit company and block the charge, and the credit company doesn't take 30%.

wcarey 6y ago
Perhaps it benefits Apple, but it also benefits me in ways I’m happy to pay for (and would be unable to pay for absent the collective bargaining).