20 ms·

I am of the opinion that the only fair option is to allow 3rd party stores with the same permissions as the official app store. Apples curation isn't (as they

I am of the opinion that the only fair option is to allow 3rd party stores with the same permissions as the official app store. Apples curation isn't (as they suggest) preventing malware, theft of information, etc - this if verifiably false given recent history with apps like tiktok stealing clipboard content. The ability to change content of payment screens post-approval (as epic have just done) also means that curation isnt stopping apps from potentially injecting phishing, etc, either. In short, they are just choosing what they like - just as any 3rd party store could do. The security comes from the sandbox (and surrounding permissions) - not from the curation. Jobs originally said that the aim of the 30% was to cover costs of running the store. It is evident from the MASSIVE profits that this is no longer the case. The size of these app marketplaces (I dont just mean apple) make them markets in their own right - its about time they were recognised and treated as such.

perseusprime11 6y ago
I am an Apple customer because I believe in their oversight and governance on the App store. I really don't want third party stores and 30% fee seems fair given the access to huge distribution.
dgellow 6y ago
As far as I understood TikTok and others weren’t stealing content, there are legitimate reasons to access the clipboard to check for links for example or other type of content the app would be interested into. It would be stealing if they actually send the content back to their servers, but I haven’t seen reports saying that’s the case.
Hendrikto 6y ago
> with apps like tiktok stealing clipboard content I do not get the focus on TikTok. Yes, it read your clipboard content… just like Snapchat, Instagram, Reddit, etc. Most security researchers agree that TikTok is among the more restrained social media apps, when it comes to gathering user data. This is a bad look for the social media landscape in general, not TikTok specifically.
- dna_polymerase 6y ago
  But TikTok is Chinese and therefore bad. At least that is what the orange man tells us. Surveillance capitalism is an American invention, China just copied that.
  - Semaphor 6y ago
    > At least that is what the orange man tells us. Considering how many hate him here and still repeat the official US talking points wrt TikTok, I don’t think you can blame him in that case.
- supermatt 6y ago
  to be honest, it was just that tiktok was publicised as doing so. I have nothing against tiktok, and do not like this witch hunt myself - it was just a recent example.
joking 6y ago
I'm on the same opinion, once the device is mine I should be able to install whatever I want. What would happen if I couldn't install the software I want on a desktop device? I really don't get how apple has survived so long with such a tight leash on IOS.
- marcus_holmes 6y ago
  Because you're not their target market. Their target market don't want to know about the technical details. They're not nerds like us.
  - joking 6y ago
    I'm actually their target market, I use an iphone as my main phone because two reasons, first they have a great hardware, and second, they support their devices much longer than any other manufacturer. An iphone 7 is 4 years from their release still a very capable phone and receives security updates and new os versions, there is no other manufactured that does that. You could say that they finance that with the app store, but their devices are actually quite priced and what the app store gives to apple is way more money that what they need. You can however not invest very much on the apple ecosystem and subscribe to most services outside the app store mode, which is what I do myself, but I'm a minority.
  - iso1210 6y ago
    People on this site are not in general nerds. The explosion in developers around the late 00s meant that the average coder is no longer a typical 'news for nerds stuff that matters' person.
    - marcus_holmes 6y ago
      Maybe in the Bay. But in the rest of the world, the average suit still considers developers to be nerds, only good for pushing the nerd-buttons.
- secretsatan 6y ago
  Because you think of it as a computer? Where as most of their think of it as a smartphone and don't give a thought to a root user or wonder why they need it. Eliminating a huge security risk that has been a bane for general computers for all time.
threeseed 6y ago
Part of Apple's security does in fact come from the curation process. Access to private APIs for example is not preventable at runtime due to the way Objective-C works. And the ability to change payment screens etc at runtime has always been possible. But Apple simply bans the developer and so instances of this happening in the wild have been basically non-existant.
- kalleboo 6y ago
  Access to private APIs is also impossible to prevent in screening since it’s trivial to obfuscate
  - threeseed 6y ago
    Not sure if it's impossible but from experience it's very difficult to bypass Apple's screening process. They can class-dump the Mach-O binary, disassemble and inspect the performSelector: calls or even just run the apps in an ARM emulator and watch for alarms whenever the reviewer manually goes through the app.
    - saagarjha 6y ago
      > from experience it's very difficult to bypass Apple's screening process From experience, it is trivial to bypass review. Trivial. > They can class-dump the Mach-O binary, disassemble and inspect the performSelector: calls or even just run the apps in an ARM emulator and watch for alarms whenever the reviewer manually goes through the app. The vast majority of apps don't go through anything close to this. At most, Apple runs a class-dump equivalent on every binary, nothing more–and you can even see it catch legitimate selectors every so often! If you think about it, this isn't surprising, because you need to have a (large) team of actual reverse engineers do this kind of thing or set up a good automated malware analysis platform, both of which Apple is fairly behind at.
- realusername 6y ago
  > Access to private APIs for example is not preventable at runtime due to the way Objective-C works. That's on Apple side to fix this, you can compare that to the browser which has a proper sandbox model without private APIs.
bluesign 6y ago
Having 3rd party stores will be net negative for me as a user. Currently I have trust to Apple, if I am or my kid charged wrong or tricked into some subscription etc, I have proof with experience that Apple will fix it. Now let’s say if we have many stores, some stores will try to be smart, will make exclusive deals, force people to install their stores to maybe play a one popular game. As a user I will end up with 10 stores on my phone, each has my billing information, if I have a problem, not I need to go to that store to handle. Oh than X app will decide to move from store A to store B, then he needs to move all subscribers there, good luck :)
- dannyr 6y ago
  > Having 3rd party stores will be net negative for me as a user. Having 3rd party stores will not prevent you for using the Apple App Store exclusively. > As a user I will end up with 10 stores on my phone, each has my billing information, Imagine if there is only 1 store, e.g. Walmart? Only Walmart has your billing information and it's the only store where you can buy things. > Now let’s say if we have many stores That would be great. These stores will be competing for customers that would drive prices down. One store might decline to sell a specific product for many reasons but another store might carry the product. Imagine that as a manufacturer, you can only sell thru Walmart. Walmart declines to sell your product and you have nowhere else to sell.
  - pmontra 6y ago
    Or they sell but decide the price they buy from you. It's called monopsony. This is not the case of Apple even if the OP made clear that Apple is making some business models impractical.
  - sjwright 6y ago
    > Having 3rd party stores will not prevent you for using the Apple App Store exclusively. It will if enough developers flee to whichever store has the cheapest rate and the fewest restrictions. It’s a race to the bottom and the consumer ultimately loses.
lloeki 6y ago
> Apples curation isn't (as they suggest) preventing malware, theft of information, etc - this if verifiably false given recent history with apps like tiktok stealing clipboard There are many things that go wrong with the App Store, but you have to realise this is a ludicrous assertion. Pasting from clipboard is an entirely different class than rootkits, backdoors, trojans, and other malware that have a vanishingly small chance to go through the review process itself. This is defence in depth. The sandbox helps, but it’s not magic. Without review, publishing an app with a sandbox bypass, or simply abusing entitlements, becomes trivial.
- MilaM 6y ago
  Yet Epic was able to sneak in their own payment system through app review. The review process is also not magic.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - graeme 6y ago
    Games have a special ability to download certain content. Epic may have done this? They clearly triggered the change remotely.
    - romanoderoma 6y ago
      It's a very peculiar ability, it's called changing the content of a web page. That's basically what Epic did.
- moooo99 6y ago
  > Without review, publishing an app with a sandbox bypass, or simply abusing entitlements, becomes trivial. I don't think this would be trivial either. Given that iOS security has historically been rather good, I guess an attacker would need a reasonably new exploit or even zero day. Assuming an attacker has access to something like that, I'm 99.8% certain he'd be able to sneak past the review process as well. As Fortnite has demonstrated, it is perfectly possible to sneak past the review process with something as obvious as a third party payment checkout. If something like that is possible, it'd be definitely possible for something like an exploit. The review process isn't magic
kqvamxurcagg 6y ago
Ultimately giving users choice is the best way forward. Apple shouldn't be allowed to block competing app stores (or sideloading) on their platform, in my view that's monopolistic. Imagine if Microsoft had restricted the ability to install and use third party software on Windows, it would of slowed digital transformation dramatically.
- gwd 6y ago
  > Ultimately giving users choice is the best way forward. OK, but right now as a user I have a choice: I can choose an ecosystem supported in part by a 30% tax on apps, or I can choose an ecosystem supported mainly by advertising. If Apple is forced to allow other stores, I lose that choice. Furthermore, a lot of the things Apple forces on apps really are for my benefit: Take the way they banned Facebook for working around their prohibition on running in the background. They can say, "If you want to access this market, you will follow these rules." If Apple is forced to allow other app stores, then not only Epic and Spotify can say, "We only install on this other store that allows us to sell subscriptions without the 30% tax", then Facebook and others will also be able to say, "We only install on this other store that lets us spy on you." One again: At the moment, as a consumer, I can choose to say, "I prefer Apple to negotiate on my behalf" or, "I'll go with Android, where I can install third-party stores". If Apple is forced to open up, I won't have that choice any more.
  - mthoms 6y ago
    >OK, but right now as a user I have a choice: I can choose an ecosystem supported in part by a 30% tax on apps, or I can choose an ecosystem supported mainly by advertising. If Apple is forced to allow other stores, I lose that choice. I'm not sure that follows. Can you elaborate on why you would "lose that choice"?
    - heisenzombie 6y ago
      A sufficiently powerful company or group could promote a third party app store by negotiating exclusive deals. Imagine a "EpicTwitBook" store being the only way to get Instagram, Snapchat, Twitter and Fortnite. Previously those apps were forced to make concessions to be on the iOS store, and I could download "Instagram, the version that makes Apple happy" app. But now, that version of the app is gone! I google "Why is my Instagram gone" and get an article that says I have to sign up to the "EpicTwitBook" store, and download the "Instagram, the version that makes Advertisers happy" app. I would prefer the first version but I don't get a choice.
virgilp 6y ago
> Jobs originally said that the aim of the 30% was to cover costs of running the store. It is evident from the MASSIVE profits that this is no longer the case. I think this is key; I would argue that Jobs has a point on curation being important; but also, in the modern world, the app store is arguably "public utility". Apple can keep their store & their rules, but the law should cap the fees so that they only cover costs of running the store - nothing more. Not unlike how EU has e.g. capped mobile data fees for telcos.
dkersten 6y ago
I agree with this. The only winners in the current situation are Apple. By opening it up to competitor app stores, yes competitors would benefit, but so would developers and so would their users. The App Store as it stands has completely stagnated to the point where it’s useless to me outside of actually downloading or buying an app. It’s been years since I’ve been able to discover new apps though it, now relying for devs to link their apps directly, YouTube videos talking about apps or websites with app lists. If I go in the App Store looking for something, unless it by chance happens to be in their top list, I can’t find anything I don’t already have a link for or know the name of, at least on iPad. If I click on a category and press “show all”, they show me maybe ten or twenty apps in total. Out of thousands. By opening the platform to other app stores, developers will benefit due to choice and competition on fees and descoverability, end users will benefit from encouraged innovation, Apple will be forced to compete on convenience or features instead of letting it stagnate while they collect buckets of cash... it would be good for consumers and the ecosystem. Microsoft got into trouble for bundling a web browser, where they didn’t directly make money, Apple should get into trouble for the App Store, where they do directly make money due to their artificial lack of competition.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- emsy 6y ago
  The stagnation is also due to the fact that no developer would take a lot of cash up front to make a innovative app at the risk of Apple banning it from the store.
  - fjdjsmsm 6y ago
    Are there many more innovative apps on Android?
    - emsy 6y ago
      I thought about this point as well, but I think the consideration that you’ll miss out a huge customer base with a lot of money (Apple customers) should be taken into account. I’m really talking about risky projects that need a lot of funding up front, where the risk of losing Apple’s customer base means ruin and lack of funding.
jbverschoor 6y ago
Emm. no thank you. History has shown that it will be abused. Also, the curation makes sure, or at least does their best effort, to catch phishing screens etc. Payments/wallet for example require the lock button. You can't mimic that. The App Store and iOS lockdown are one of the biggest reasons I'm on Apple devices. On macOS, I think there should be even more sandboxing and process separation. 30% might be a bit too much for certain types of transactions, but that's not the same reasoning as "allow 3rd party app stores" I'm surprised people aren't talking about other appstores / platforms. It's just good-old-apple-bashing.
- ryanbrunner 6y ago
  It's easy to just not use non-Apple app stores though. That's the current state of things on Google, where other app stores are allowed but the vast majority of people just use Google. If you personally value security and a smooth user experience over being able to install whatever you want go for it, no one would ever force you to use another app store.
  - j2bax 6y ago
    I imagine it would turn out similar to the game store market on PC. You'd have the various large publishers all having their own stores to get their games/software. Personally, I much prefer to just buy and manage all of my games through Steam... but I do have a handful of games through other launchers. It's annoying, but it would be weird to not allow them to control how they deploy their software.
  - radley 6y ago
    > on Google, where other app stores are allowed but the vast majority of people just use Google... no one would ever force you to use another app store. Google implemented several hurdles to drive users away from competitive app stores. They're all but forcing people to use the Play Store.
    - Tijdreiziger 6y ago
      How so? I can open my web browser right now and install F-Droid in a matter of a minute. I assume the same holds true for Amazon's app store.
pwinnski 6y ago
I have definitely come around on this. I can see a case for making adding a third-party story cumbersome, and having Apple still control the "certificates," let's say, for each store, but yes, I agree, there need to be alternatives. It still seems awkward to say that Apple must allow for competitors, but they're a $2 trillion company now, and I think rules are just weird for companies of that size.
- ocdtrekkie 6y ago
  Presumably control of iOS means Apple would never lose the ability to distrust/remove a given store and apps installed with it. But Apple would need to be under clear regulation that it could not do so for a revenue-related reason. Presumably a store openly promoting pirated apps would be a reason, and a store which has significant malware problems, could both be compelling reasons to permit Apple to do this, but I would go so far as to suggest they should be required to involve the legal system somehow in the process, rather than make a unilateral call.
  - wbronitsky 6y ago
    > it could not do so for a revenue-related reason While this might sound good, this would be impossible to enforce in practice, as everything a company does is revenue-related. Any rules the app store or iOS have are directly related to revenue by definition. For example, if Apple allowed boundless permissions and tons of buggy apps, their revenue would probably decrease. This issue is harder to regulate than it first seems.
    - ocdtrekkie 6y ago
      Yes, technically, "everything a company does is revenue-related". However, you can realistically draw a line sonewhere between blocking illegal material (pirated/malware) and blocking apps that don't pay Apple their 30%. My comment was not intended to be the exact legalese that would be required for such a limitation, but you can probably gather roughly where I draw the line from it.
simonh 6y ago
The problem with this is that it would be putting an obligation on Apple to design and implement APIs it doesn't want to create or support, and implement features it disagrees with. Who gets to decide what APIs and features comply with any such imposed obligation? Who reviews it and certifies compliance? Who decides on how many resources get allocated to it? As technology advances and iOS changes, how will the specification be evolved? One option for them would be to shut down general access to the App Store and only enter into bespoke agreements with individual developers. Make it much more like a console system or feature phone with vendor-provided or bespoke licensed add-on features. I think this is a more likely outcome from trying to ram open access down their throats because it's an 'open platform'. Just close it. That's what Steve Jobs wanted to do in the first place. They'd lose some customers but maybe good enough for 90% of current iPhone users is good enough for Apple, rather than losing control of the design and feature set of their own product.
- ardy42 6y ago
  > The problem with this is that it would be putting an obligation on Apple to design and implement APIs it doesn't want to create or support, and implement features it disagrees with. That's not a problem, it's just life. Pretty much every person and organization has obligations they need to comply with that they may disagree with. For instance, COPPA means Apple (and other internet companies) already need to implement features to keep kids under 13 from creating accounts on their site without parental permission. > Who gets to decide what APIs and features comply with any such imposed obligation? Who reviews it and certifies compliance? Who decides on how many resources get allocated to it? Easy: either 1) government authorities or 2) an independent private self-regulatory organization like FINRA.
  - simonh 6y ago
    So now the US government and the EU will be making legislation that specifies phone APIs and designs user interfaces. Great! Not going to happen. Apple will simple close up the App Store into a private premium feature delivery system. Meanwhile the entire rest of the industry will be stuck with a new version of WAP. Thanks guys.
HumblyTossed 6y ago
I would love to see something like F-Droid for iOS.
m3kw9 6y ago
This opinion seem to ignore that it essentially opens up the entire hardware platform for people to use. This would completely change Apple as a business.
- ignoramous 6y ago
  > This would completely change Apple as a business. Monopolistic behaviour hurt markets and overall economy more than what a flourishing, unrestricted "business" can capture.
- bogwog 6y ago
  > This would completely change Apple as a business. So? Imagine if we handicapped the march of progress so that Blockbuster wouldn't have to go out of business. If Apple can't innovate, then let them die. (but chances are good that they'll turn out just fine)
TheOtherHobbes 6y ago
I don't see how 3rd party stores can possibly work in a system that relies on rigid permissions. HN fetishises root access as if it's some kind of magic panacea, but in reality most users don't care about root access at all - they want apps that work, they have zero interest in tinkering with software for its own sake, and root access will not make apps more reliable or more secure. The main problems with the App Store are the cost (30% is egregious), the distance between Apple's claims about privacy and simple exploits (see also Zoom and TikTok), the fact that search is user hostile, and the fact that Apple forces its payment system on app developers for no good reason. Fix all of those and cut the tax to 10% and Apple can continue to have its semi-monopoly.
- frenchyatwork 6y ago
  Another big problem with the App Store is that there are so many requirements (can't be too much like something Apple made, can't be too much like a web app) and these rules are inconsistently and arbitrarily applied.
  - benologist 6y ago
    I like how apps cannot include sexual, violent or offensive content but Apple Music and Netflix can.
    - yungstevejobs 6y ago
      ? Pretty sure Reddit and Twitter include sexual and violent content. The guideline you’re referring to states that an app shouldn’t solely be used to access pornographic content and services. Last time I checked none of the apps you and I mentioned are used exclusively for porn or violent content
      - benologist 6y ago
        The carve-out is for user-generated content but Netflix and Apple Music are not user-generated content and they do not even try to meet the requirements imposed on UGC. https://developer.apple.com/app-store/review/guidelines/ https://developer.apple.com/app-store/review/guidelines/ If they're not UGC then they're violating rule 1.1 - > Apps should not include content that is offensive, insensitive, upsetting, intended to disgust, in exceptionally poor taste, or just plain creepy. HBO certainly are not UGC, yet the HBO app was allowed nudity as a prelude to people having sex many times in Game of Thrones. Rule 1.1.4 - > Overtly sexual or pornographic material, defined by Webster’s Dictionary as "explicit descriptions or displays of sexual organs or activities intended to stimulate erotic rather than aesthetic or emotional feelings
kgwxd 6y ago
Why any stores at all? Just allow software to be installed like a PC. There are millions of PCs running just fine without a "store". No one is making any extra money, but that's OK, because they shouldn't be.
- krainboltgreene 6y ago
  The BredoLab botnet was 30M PCs strong.
  - kgwxd 6y ago
    "Stores" doesn't solve that problem. The TikTok virus is 300M strong. There are solutions to minimizing malware installs that don't involve a middle-man taking a cut.
mistersquid 6y ago
> Jobs originally said that the aim of the 30% was to cover costs of running the store. It is evident from the MASSIVE profits that this is no longer the case. Steve Jobs no longer works at Apple.

perseusprime11 6y ago

I am an Apple customer because I believe in their oversight and governance on the App store. I really don't want third party stores and 30% fee seems fair given the access to huge distribution.

dgellow 6y ago

As far as I understood TikTok and others weren’t stealing content, there are legitimate reasons to access the clipboard to check for links for example or other type of content the app would be interested into. It would be stealing if they actually send the content back to their servers, but I haven’t seen reports saying that’s the case.

Hendrikto 6y ago

> with apps like tiktok stealing clipboard content I do not get the focus on TikTok. Yes, it read your clipboard content… just like Snapchat, Instagram, Reddit, etc. Most security researchers agree that TikTok is among the more restrained social media apps, when it comes to gathering user data. This is a bad look for the social media landscape in general, not TikTok specifically.

dna_polymerase 6y ago
But TikTok is Chinese and therefore bad. At least that is what the orange man tells us. Surveillance capitalism is an American invention, China just copied that.
- Semaphor 6y ago
  > At least that is what the orange man tells us. Considering how many hate him here and still repeat the official US talking points wrt TikTok, I don’t think you can blame him in that case.
supermatt 6y ago
to be honest, it was just that tiktok was publicised as doing so. I have nothing against tiktok, and do not like this witch hunt myself - it was just a recent example.

joking 6y ago

I'm on the same opinion, once the device is mine I should be able to install whatever I want. What would happen if I couldn't install the software I want on a desktop device? I really don't get how apple has survived so long with such a tight leash on IOS.

marcus_holmes 6y ago
Because you're not their target market. Their target market don't want to know about the technical details. They're not nerds like us.
- joking 6y ago
  I'm actually their target market, I use an iphone as my main phone because two reasons, first they have a great hardware, and second, they support their devices much longer than any other manufacturer. An iphone 7 is 4 years from their release still a very capable phone and receives security updates and new os versions, there is no other manufactured that does that. You could say that they finance that with the app store, but their devices are actually quite priced and what the app store gives to apple is way more money that what they need. You can however not invest very much on the apple ecosystem and subscribe to most services outside the app store mode, which is what I do myself, but I'm a minority.
- iso1210 6y ago
  People on this site are not in general nerds. The explosion in developers around the late 00s meant that the average coder is no longer a typical 'news for nerds stuff that matters' person.
  - marcus_holmes 6y ago
    Maybe in the Bay. But in the rest of the world, the average suit still considers developers to be nerds, only good for pushing the nerd-buttons.
secretsatan 6y ago
Because you think of it as a computer? Where as most of their think of it as a smartphone and don't give a thought to a root user or wonder why they need it. Eliminating a huge security risk that has been a bane for general computers for all time.

threeseed 6y ago

Part of Apple's security does in fact come from the curation process. Access to private APIs for example is not preventable at runtime due to the way Objective-C works. And the ability to change payment screens etc at runtime has always been possible. But Apple simply bans the developer and so instances of this happening in the wild have been basically non-existant.

kalleboo 6y ago
Access to private APIs is also impossible to prevent in screening since it’s trivial to obfuscate
- threeseed 6y ago
  Not sure if it's impossible but from experience it's very difficult to bypass Apple's screening process. They can class-dump the Mach-O binary, disassemble and inspect the performSelector: calls or even just run the apps in an ARM emulator and watch for alarms whenever the reviewer manually goes through the app.
  - saagarjha 6y ago
    > from experience it's very difficult to bypass Apple's screening process From experience, it is trivial to bypass review. Trivial. > They can class-dump the Mach-O binary, disassemble and inspect the performSelector: calls or even just run the apps in an ARM emulator and watch for alarms whenever the reviewer manually goes through the app. The vast majority of apps don't go through anything close to this. At most, Apple runs a class-dump equivalent on every binary, nothing more–and you can even see it catch legitimate selectors every so often! If you think about it, this isn't surprising, because you need to have a (large) team of actual reverse engineers do this kind of thing or set up a good automated malware analysis platform, both of which Apple is fairly behind at.
realusername 6y ago
> Access to private APIs for example is not preventable at runtime due to the way Objective-C works. That's on Apple side to fix this, you can compare that to the browser which has a proper sandbox model without private APIs.

bluesign 6y ago

Having 3rd party stores will be net negative for me as a user. Currently I have trust to Apple, if I am or my kid charged wrong or tricked into some subscription etc, I have proof with experience that Apple will fix it. Now let’s say if we have many stores, some stores will try to be smart, will make exclusive deals, force people to install their stores to maybe play a one popular game. As a user I will end up with 10 stores on my phone, each has my billing information, if I have a problem, not I need to go to that store to handle. Oh than X app will decide to move from store A to store B, then he needs to move all subscribers there, good luck :)

dannyr 6y ago
> Having 3rd party stores will be net negative for me as a user. Having 3rd party stores will not prevent you for using the Apple App Store exclusively. > As a user I will end up with 10 stores on my phone, each has my billing information, Imagine if there is only 1 store, e.g. Walmart? Only Walmart has your billing information and it's the only store where you can buy things. > Now let’s say if we have many stores That would be great. These stores will be competing for customers that would drive prices down. One store might decline to sell a specific product for many reasons but another store might carry the product. Imagine that as a manufacturer, you can only sell thru Walmart. Walmart declines to sell your product and you have nowhere else to sell.
- pmontra 6y ago
  Or they sell but decide the price they buy from you. It's called monopsony. This is not the case of Apple even if the OP made clear that Apple is making some business models impractical.
- sjwright 6y ago
  > Having 3rd party stores will not prevent you for using the Apple App Store exclusively. It will if enough developers flee to whichever store has the cheapest rate and the fewest restrictions. It’s a race to the bottom and the consumer ultimately loses.

lloeki 6y ago

> Apples curation isn't (as they suggest) preventing malware, theft of information, etc - this if verifiably false given recent history with apps like tiktok stealing clipboard There are many things that go wrong with the App Store, but you have to realise this is a ludicrous assertion. Pasting from clipboard is an entirely different class than rootkits, backdoors, trojans, and other malware that have a vanishingly small chance to go through the review process itself. This is defence in depth. The sandbox helps, but it’s not magic. Without review, publishing an app with a sandbox bypass, or simply abusing entitlements, becomes trivial.

MilaM 6y ago
Yet Epic was able to sneak in their own payment system through app review. The review process is also not magic.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- graeme 6y ago
  Games have a special ability to download certain content. Epic may have done this? They clearly triggered the change remotely.
  - romanoderoma 6y ago
    It's a very peculiar ability, it's called changing the content of a web page. That's basically what Epic did.
moooo99 6y ago
> Without review, publishing an app with a sandbox bypass, or simply abusing entitlements, becomes trivial. I don't think this would be trivial either. Given that iOS security has historically been rather good, I guess an attacker would need a reasonably new exploit or even zero day. Assuming an attacker has access to something like that, I'm 99.8% certain he'd be able to sneak past the review process as well. As Fortnite has demonstrated, it is perfectly possible to sneak past the review process with something as obvious as a third party payment checkout. If something like that is possible, it'd be definitely possible for something like an exploit. The review process isn't magic

kqvamxurcagg 6y ago

Ultimately giving users choice is the best way forward. Apple shouldn't be allowed to block competing app stores (or sideloading) on their platform, in my view that's monopolistic. Imagine if Microsoft had restricted the ability to install and use third party software on Windows, it would of slowed digital transformation dramatically.

gwd 6y ago
> Ultimately giving users choice is the best way forward. OK, but right now as a user I have a choice: I can choose an ecosystem supported in part by a 30% tax on apps, or I can choose an ecosystem supported mainly by advertising. If Apple is forced to allow other stores, I lose that choice. Furthermore, a lot of the things Apple forces on apps really are for my benefit: Take the way they banned Facebook for working around their prohibition on running in the background. They can say, "If you want to access this market, you will follow these rules." If Apple is forced to allow other app stores, then not only Epic and Spotify can say, "We only install on this other store that allows us to sell subscriptions without the 30% tax", then Facebook and others will also be able to say, "We only install on this other store that lets us spy on you." One again: At the moment, as a consumer, I can choose to say, "I prefer Apple to negotiate on my behalf" or, "I'll go with Android, where I can install third-party stores". If Apple is forced to open up, I won't have that choice any more.
- mthoms 6y ago
  >OK, but right now as a user I have a choice: I can choose an ecosystem supported in part by a 30% tax on apps, or I can choose an ecosystem supported mainly by advertising. If Apple is forced to allow other stores, I lose that choice. I'm not sure that follows. Can you elaborate on why you would "lose that choice"?
  - heisenzombie 6y ago
    A sufficiently powerful company or group could promote a third party app store by negotiating exclusive deals. Imagine a "EpicTwitBook" store being the only way to get Instagram, Snapchat, Twitter and Fortnite. Previously those apps were forced to make concessions to be on the iOS store, and I could download "Instagram, the version that makes Apple happy" app. But now, that version of the app is gone! I google "Why is my Instagram gone" and get an article that says I have to sign up to the "EpicTwitBook" store, and download the "Instagram, the version that makes Advertisers happy" app. I would prefer the first version but I don't get a choice.

virgilp 6y ago

> Jobs originally said that the aim of the 30% was to cover costs of running the store. It is evident from the MASSIVE profits that this is no longer the case. I think this is key; I would argue that Jobs has a point on curation being important; but also, in the modern world, the app store is arguably "public utility". Apple can keep their store & their rules, but the law should cap the fees so that they only cover costs of running the store - nothing more. Not unlike how EU has e.g. capped mobile data fees for telcos.

dkersten 6y ago

I agree with this. The only winners in the current situation are Apple. By opening it up to competitor app stores, yes competitors would benefit, but so would developers and so would their users. The App Store as it stands has completely stagnated to the point where it’s useless to me outside of actually downloading or buying an app. It’s been years since I’ve been able to discover new apps though it, now relying for devs to link their apps directly, YouTube videos talking about apps or websites with app lists. If I go in the App Store looking for something, unless it by chance happens to be in their top list, I can’t find anything I don’t already have a link for or know the name of, at least on iPad. If I click on a category and press “show all”, they show me maybe ten or twenty apps in total. Out of thousands. By opening the platform to other app stores, developers will benefit due to choice and competition on fees and descoverability, end users will benefit from encouraged innovation, Apple will be forced to compete on convenience or features instead of letting it stagnate while they collect buckets of cash... it would be good for consumers and the ecosystem. Microsoft got into trouble for bundling a web browser, where they didn’t directly make money, Apple should get into trouble for the App Store, where they do directly make money due to their artificial lack of competition.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
emsy 6y ago
The stagnation is also due to the fact that no developer would take a lot of cash up front to make a innovative app at the risk of Apple banning it from the store.
- fjdjsmsm 6y ago
  Are there many more innovative apps on Android?
  - emsy 6y ago
    I thought about this point as well, but I think the consideration that you’ll miss out a huge customer base with a lot of money (Apple customers) should be taken into account. I’m really talking about risky projects that need a lot of funding up front, where the risk of losing Apple’s customer base means ruin and lack of funding.

jbverschoor 6y ago

Emm. no thank you. History has shown that it will be abused. Also, the curation makes sure, or at least does their best effort, to catch phishing screens etc. Payments/wallet for example require the lock button. You can't mimic that. The App Store and iOS lockdown are one of the biggest reasons I'm on Apple devices. On macOS, I think there should be even more sandboxing and process separation. 30% might be a bit too much for certain types of transactions, but that's not the same reasoning as "allow 3rd party app stores" I'm surprised people aren't talking about other appstores / platforms. It's just good-old-apple-bashing.

ryanbrunner 6y ago
It's easy to just not use non-Apple app stores though. That's the current state of things on Google, where other app stores are allowed but the vast majority of people just use Google. If you personally value security and a smooth user experience over being able to install whatever you want go for it, no one would ever force you to use another app store.
- j2bax 6y ago
  I imagine it would turn out similar to the game store market on PC. You'd have the various large publishers all having their own stores to get their games/software. Personally, I much prefer to just buy and manage all of my games through Steam... but I do have a handful of games through other launchers. It's annoying, but it would be weird to not allow them to control how they deploy their software.
- radley 6y ago
  > on Google, where other app stores are allowed but the vast majority of people just use Google... no one would ever force you to use another app store. Google implemented several hurdles to drive users away from competitive app stores. They're all but forcing people to use the Play Store.
  - Tijdreiziger 6y ago
    How so? I can open my web browser right now and install F-Droid in a matter of a minute. I assume the same holds true for Amazon's app store.

pwinnski 6y ago

I have definitely come around on this. I can see a case for making adding a third-party story cumbersome, and having Apple still control the "certificates," let's say, for each store, but yes, I agree, there need to be alternatives. It still seems awkward to say that Apple must allow for competitors, but they're a $2 trillion company now, and I think rules are just weird for companies of that size.

ocdtrekkie 6y ago
Presumably control of iOS means Apple would never lose the ability to distrust/remove a given store and apps installed with it. But Apple would need to be under clear regulation that it could not do so for a revenue-related reason. Presumably a store openly promoting pirated apps would be a reason, and a store which has significant malware problems, could both be compelling reasons to permit Apple to do this, but I would go so far as to suggest they should be required to involve the legal system somehow in the process, rather than make a unilateral call.
- wbronitsky 6y ago
  > it could not do so for a revenue-related reason While this might sound good, this would be impossible to enforce in practice, as everything a company does is revenue-related. Any rules the app store or iOS have are directly related to revenue by definition. For example, if Apple allowed boundless permissions and tons of buggy apps, their revenue would probably decrease. This issue is harder to regulate than it first seems.
  - ocdtrekkie 6y ago
    Yes, technically, "everything a company does is revenue-related". However, you can realistically draw a line sonewhere between blocking illegal material (pirated/malware) and blocking apps that don't pay Apple their 30%. My comment was not intended to be the exact legalese that would be required for such a limitation, but you can probably gather roughly where I draw the line from it.

simonh 6y ago

The problem with this is that it would be putting an obligation on Apple to design and implement APIs it doesn't want to create or support, and implement features it disagrees with. Who gets to decide what APIs and features comply with any such imposed obligation? Who reviews it and certifies compliance? Who decides on how many resources get allocated to it? As technology advances and iOS changes, how will the specification be evolved? One option for them would be to shut down general access to the App Store and only enter into bespoke agreements with individual developers. Make it much more like a console system or feature phone with vendor-provided or bespoke licensed add-on features. I think this is a more likely outcome from trying to ram open access down their throats because it's an 'open platform'. Just close it. That's what Steve Jobs wanted to do in the first place. They'd lose some customers but maybe good enough for 90% of current iPhone users is good enough for Apple, rather than losing control of the design and feature set of their own product.

ardy42 6y ago
> The problem with this is that it would be putting an obligation on Apple to design and implement APIs it doesn't want to create or support, and implement features it disagrees with. That's not a problem, it's just life. Pretty much every person and organization has obligations they need to comply with that they may disagree with. For instance, COPPA means Apple (and other internet companies) already need to implement features to keep kids under 13 from creating accounts on their site without parental permission. > Who gets to decide what APIs and features comply with any such imposed obligation? Who reviews it and certifies compliance? Who decides on how many resources get allocated to it? Easy: either 1) government authorities or 2) an independent private self-regulatory organization like FINRA.
- simonh 6y ago
  So now the US government and the EU will be making legislation that specifies phone APIs and designs user interfaces. Great! Not going to happen. Apple will simple close up the App Store into a private premium feature delivery system. Meanwhile the entire rest of the industry will be stuck with a new version of WAP. Thanks guys.

HumblyTossed 6y ago

I would love to see something like F-Droid for iOS.

m3kw9 6y ago

This opinion seem to ignore that it essentially opens up the entire hardware platform for people to use. This would completely change Apple as a business.

ignoramous 6y ago
> This would completely change Apple as a business. Monopolistic behaviour hurt markets and overall economy more than what a flourishing, unrestricted "business" can capture.
bogwog 6y ago
> This would completely change Apple as a business. So? Imagine if we handicapped the march of progress so that Blockbuster wouldn't have to go out of business. If Apple can't innovate, then let them die. (but chances are good that they'll turn out just fine)

TheOtherHobbes 6y ago

I don't see how 3rd party stores can possibly work in a system that relies on rigid permissions. HN fetishises root access as if it's some kind of magic panacea, but in reality most users don't care about root access at all - they want apps that work, they have zero interest in tinkering with software for its own sake, and root access will not make apps more reliable or more secure. The main problems with the App Store are the cost (30% is egregious), the distance between Apple's claims about privacy and simple exploits (see also Zoom and TikTok), the fact that search is user hostile, and the fact that Apple forces its payment system on app developers for no good reason. Fix all of those and cut the tax to 10% and Apple can continue to have its semi-monopoly.

frenchyatwork 6y ago
Another big problem with the App Store is that there are so many requirements (can't be too much like something Apple made, can't be too much like a web app) and these rules are inconsistently and arbitrarily applied.
- benologist 6y ago
  I like how apps cannot include sexual, violent or offensive content but Apple Music and Netflix can.
  - yungstevejobs 6y ago
    ? Pretty sure Reddit and Twitter include sexual and violent content. The guideline you’re referring to states that an app shouldn’t solely be used to access pornographic content and services. Last time I checked none of the apps you and I mentioned are used exclusively for porn or violent content
    - benologist 6y ago
      The carve-out is for user-generated content but Netflix and Apple Music are not user-generated content and they do not even try to meet the requirements imposed on UGC. https://developer.apple.com/app-store/review/guidelines/ https://developer.apple.com/app-store/review/guidelines/ If they're not UGC then they're violating rule 1.1 - > Apps should not include content that is offensive, insensitive, upsetting, intended to disgust, in exceptionally poor taste, or just plain creepy. HBO certainly are not UGC, yet the HBO app was allowed nudity as a prelude to people having sex many times in Game of Thrones. Rule 1.1.4 - > Overtly sexual or pornographic material, defined by Webster’s Dictionary as "explicit descriptions or displays of sexual organs or activities intended to stimulate erotic rather than aesthetic or emotional feelings

kgwxd 6y ago

Why any stores at all? Just allow software to be installed like a PC. There are millions of PCs running just fine without a "store". No one is making any extra money, but that's OK, because they shouldn't be.

krainboltgreene 6y ago
The BredoLab botnet was 30M PCs strong.
- kgwxd 6y ago
  "Stores" doesn't solve that problem. The TikTok virus is 300M strong. There are solutions to minimizing malware installs that don't involve a middle-man taking a cut.

mistersquid 6y ago

> Jobs originally said that the aim of the 30% was to cover costs of running the store. It is evident from the MASSIVE profits that this is no longer the case. Steve Jobs no longer works at Apple.