7 ms·

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 d

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.
jasode 6y ago
>Microsoft got into trouble for bundling a web browser, But to clarify, Microsoft ultimately won the case on appeal and had the initial ruling against them overturned.[1] So in the final verdict, MS did not get into trouble for bundling the browser. In 2001, the DOJ settlement didn't force Microsoft to include Netscape Navigator or any other 3rd-party software on their standard desktop. The developers in 2020 really don't want to hear this but Apple Inc actually has decades of case precedent to support the idea that Apple controls its own hardware with its own exclusive app store. To force Apple to include Epic's app store would require some new legal arguments that today's judge would be sympathetic to. Not saying it's impossible but it's not a slam dunk antitrust case as many on HN believe. In other words, the status quo established in previous decided cases (including MS winning its antitrust IE case) actually supports the idea that Tesla is not forced to include Apple's Carplay in its cars' infotainment hardware, and Apple in turn is not forced to include a 3rd-party "Tesla app store" so the Tesla can bypass Apple's App Store review policies. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Microsoft_Corp.#Settlement https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Microsoft_Cor...
- nodamage 6y ago
  > But to clarify, Microsoft ultimately won the case on appeal and had the initial ruling against them overturned.[1] This is an oversimplification of the appeal, as while the penalty against Microsoft was overturned, the appeals court did affirm several of the antitrust violations against Microsoft. In particular: 1. The appeals court affirmed that Microsoft's license restrictions preventing OEMs from pre-installing alternate browsers violated the Sherman Act. 2. The appeals court found that Microsoft's technical integration of IE and Windows was not a violation of the Sherman Act because Microsoft offered legitimate justification for why the integration was necessary. (When a defendant offers a legitimate justification the burden of proof shifts back to the plaintiff to show that the anticompetitive effect outweighs the justification. In this case the appeals court found the DOJ failed to do this.) 3. The appeals court affirmed that Microsoft's deals with ISPs to promote IE at the expense of other browsers violated the Sherman Act. 4. The appeals court affirmed that Microsoft's deal with Apple to bundle IE with Mac OS in exchange for the development of the Mac version of Office violated the Sherman Act. (Bill Gates threatened to pull Office for Mac if Mac OS bundled Netscape instead of IE.) 5. The appeals court did not actually address whether tying IE to Windows was an antitrust violation or not. They concluded that it could not be a per se violation, and the issue was remanded back to the district court for further analysis under the rule of reason which would have required additional proceedings, which never happened as Microsoft and the DOJ eventually settled. 6. The appeals court found that the DOJ failed to prove their claim that Microsoft attempted to monopolize the browser market, largely because they failed to provide sufficient evidence that Microsoft had a "dangerous probability" of success. Finally, the reason the penalty was overturned by the appeals court largely had to do with the district court judge not following the correct legal procedures and failing to reasonably justify why such a large penalty (breaking up the company) was warranted. Plus they were really unhappy with that judge going and talking to the media about the case. Yes, ultimately Microsoft was not broken up. After Bush was elected, DOJ policy changed and they decided to no longer pursue the breakup. But it's a bit misleading to say they won the appeal. It's more like: they won a couple claims, they lost a bunch of claims, and the overall penalty was deemed too harsh. (Note: I skipped some details but the full text of the appeal is an interesting read: https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=17987618389090921096 https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=179876183890909...) --- That all being said, it's worth noting that most of the violations affirmed were related to Microsoft's attempts to unlawfully maintain their operating system monopoly which at the time had over 95% market share, not due to their attempts to dominate the browser market. And it's possible that if they had merely included IE with Windows and not taken extra actions to force other companies (OEMs, ISPs, Apple) to bundle IE over Netscape, they may not have have been found liable at all. As applied to the current situation with Apple, it's unlikely that Apple will be exposed to the same liability because they simply don't have the level of monopoly power that Microsoft did at the time.
fjdjsmsm 6y ago
The problem with this argument is the existence of Android. The app ecosystem on Android is not appreciably better than iOS. Opening iOS to third party app store will likely just increase copyright infringement, leading to fewer paid apps.
- kevincox 6y ago
  I think it is. I have the best of both worlds. Most of the time I download apps from a store that is roughly as safe as the Apple store. (Maybe not quite as high, but I don't think that this changes the argument). However if there is some software that Google doesn't like I can install it myself. Or I can run a patch that some developer posted on GitHub and test it before it has been merged and published. It shows that there is some convenience from a "single" app store, such that people won't flood away and lead to a race to the bottom in quality. But it also shows that you can maintain that experience while allowing users to install whatever they want. So Apple is claiming that allowing people to install whatever they want, or having multiple App Stores will lead to crumbling of the convenient and secure ecosystem that they have created. However Android has shown that this is not the case.
  - fjdjsmsm 6y ago
    95% of the public don’t even know what GitHub is. The vast majority of people aren’t going to run patches a developer posted there. Anyway, the argument was that the Apple app store was stifling app development. In your reply you yourself say the apps on the Google store are “Maybe not quite as high” quality.
    - mthoms 6y ago
      That quote was in reference to security, not quality.
    - AnthonyMouse 6y ago
      > 95% of the public don’t even know what GitHub is. The vast majority of people aren’t going to run patches a developer posted there. Which doesn't matter, because the person who is going to test your patch does, or the person who will write their own and submit it. Which makes the app better, for everybody. > Anyway, the argument was that the Apple app store was stifling app development. In your reply you yourself say the apps on the Google store are “Maybe not quite as high” quality. There is a difference between the quality of an app and the quality of a store. If Google Play contains all the same apps as Apple's app store, but they're higher quality because people hack on them more, it could still have a lower average quality if the store itself is less selective and there are also a bunch of lower quality apps. Which doesn't really matter because nobody is making you install those ones. Especially when you're not using the store for discovery to begin with, which they're increasingly useless at.
nemothekid 6y ago
>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. It's hard for me to reconcile this, and I keep seeing that 3rd party app stores would be better for users, but it all seems very handwavy. You would think this would be an easy point to prove as Android has had alternative app stores for years, but there seem to be no winners there. I'm not sure how having to download app specific app stores (i.e. Epic's app store) is better for anyone except for Epic.
- gknoy 6y ago
  Humble Bundle has an android app that lets you download APKs, and then prompts you to install them. I've used that to install several android games in the past, even for things that are available in different versions on the Play store. It's never showed me pop-up ads, and it's only for installing things that I've already bought via their website. It's not a large store, I expect, and I don't often use it install things, but it seems to be an unambiguous example of something that benefits users. I bought things via Humble, and then am able to install them on any android device I ever have (in theory). If they were to add the ability to actually buy things in the app, it would effectively turn into something with an interface like the Kindle app (which shows me both my library of books, as well as a shopping interface).
- LamaOfRuin 6y ago
  3rd party stores allowed Amazon to bootstrap the only reasonable android tablet ecosystem and become the second largest tablet maker in the world after Apple. F-droid maintains a modest but robust marketplace of open source software, some of which include things that are not allowed in either Apple or Google app stores. 3rd party stores also allow numerous country-focused stores which arguably serve their home markets better than Google or Apple are willing to.
- AnthonyMouse 6y ago
  > You would think this would be an easy point to prove as Android has had alternative app stores for years, but there seem to be no winners there. I'm not sure how having to download app specific app stores (i.e. Epic's app store) is better for anyone except for Epic. Let's start with one point. Third party stores don't have to be popular in order for them to be beneficial, because their existence causes the dominant store to take competitive steps to avoid their attaining popularity. For example, you can install actual Firefox on Android, from Google Play, instead of it being nothing but a skin over the system browser like it is on iOS. Because if they didn't allow actual Firefox in Google Play, it would still be in F-Droid or similar, and that would make the competing store more popular. Since they don't want that, they allow it in the default store. Then the default store remains dominant, but only because it does beneficial things like that as a result of the competitive pressure. And third party apps can send and receive SMS on Android and various other things that Apple doesn't allow solely because it pushes people to use Apple's apps instead and there is no competitive pressure from other stores pushing Apple to allow those competing apps in their store. But more than that, the other Android stores are actually useful, they just tend to have a niche. Because people are still going to use the default store unless there is a reason not to, since it's lower friction. But the other stores still get to address the cases that the default store fails at. So the fact that they exist at all is proof that they're doing something useful, since otherwise who would sustain them? > I'm not sure how having to download app specific app stores (i.e. Epic's app store) is better for anyone except for Epic. I mean, the fact that they're not paying Apple 30% and then passing most of that savings on to the customer is obviously going to save the customer money.
yungstevejobs 6y ago
>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. I think the only group that will benefit from 3rd party app stores on iOS is developers. I don’t see end users benefiting at all. The simplicity and convenience in downloading and discovering apps is gone. You said you have trouble discovering apps now with a unified store, so I’m not sure how discovering apps on multiple different app stores will be any easier. Frankly I’m sure it will become much more difficult and complicated for end users. Also I’m not sure how much more convenient Apple can make the App Store for iOS users. Payment information isn’t being shared between multiple parties. Switching payment info doesn’t involve going through each service. Receipts are automatically sent to emails. Automatic app updates. No confusion when it comes to where to download an app. The App Store consistently brings in more money than the play store each year, despite Apple and iOS having a much smaller market share than Google and Android. I attribute this to Apples guidelines and developer tools, but also because of user confidence in the App Store. More people are willing to scan their face or use Touch ID because how simple and convenient IAP is. That and users are aware their payment info isn’t being sent around to multiple parties. I believe everyone arguing for 3rd party app stores on iOS aren’t thinking as the end user. at all. You said that allowing 3rd party stores will benefit end users with innovation, but innovate what exactly ? How much more innovation does the process of finding and downloading apps need? >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. Why should they get in trouble? Let’s not forget that Microsoft only developed one part of the final product(the OS). In Apples case they created every part of the product. The hardware , the software and the market on the software. I think they’re well in their rights to decide what and how 3rd party software gets on their OS..
- clusterfish 6y ago
  Really. As the end user I don't want to pay Apple a 30% sales tax on all my apps, content and service purchases on a device that I already paid a thousand dollars for. 90% of the reason people are even talking about alternative app stores is because this 30% is extortion made possible by excessive monopolistic power provided by tight vertical integration. If it was 10% no one would blink an eye and it would still be massively profitable for Apple. They're just too fucking greedy, and the amount of their apologists here is insane. The collective hypocrisy of chanting for things like the right to repair while not even recognizing the right to install arbitrary apps on a computing device you paid for in full is just mind boggling. Americans trust everyone with a fucking gun but oh no, being able to install a non-Apple-approved app or - gasp - use a non-apple payment method - will collapse the whole ecosystem. Haha.

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.

jasode 6y ago

>Microsoft got into trouble for bundling a web browser, But to clarify, Microsoft ultimately won the case on appeal and had the initial ruling against them overturned.[1] So in the final verdict, MS did not get into trouble for bundling the browser. In 2001, the DOJ settlement didn't force Microsoft to include Netscape Navigator or any other 3rd-party software on their standard desktop. The developers in 2020 really don't want to hear this but Apple Inc actually has decades of case precedent to support the idea that Apple controls its own hardware with its own exclusive app store. To force Apple to include Epic's app store would require some new legal arguments that today's judge would be sympathetic to. Not saying it's impossible but it's not a slam dunk antitrust case as many on HN believe. In other words, the status quo established in previous decided cases (including MS winning its antitrust IE case) actually supports the idea that Tesla is not forced to include Apple's Carplay in its cars' infotainment hardware, and Apple in turn is not forced to include a 3rd-party "Tesla app store" so the Tesla can bypass Apple's App Store review policies. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Microsoft_Corp.#Settlement https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Microsoft_Cor...

nodamage 6y ago
> But to clarify, Microsoft ultimately won the case on appeal and had the initial ruling against them overturned.[1] This is an oversimplification of the appeal, as while the penalty against Microsoft was overturned, the appeals court did affirm several of the antitrust violations against Microsoft. In particular: 1. The appeals court affirmed that Microsoft's license restrictions preventing OEMs from pre-installing alternate browsers violated the Sherman Act. 2. The appeals court found that Microsoft's technical integration of IE and Windows was not a violation of the Sherman Act because Microsoft offered legitimate justification for why the integration was necessary. (When a defendant offers a legitimate justification the burden of proof shifts back to the plaintiff to show that the anticompetitive effect outweighs the justification. In this case the appeals court found the DOJ failed to do this.) 3. The appeals court affirmed that Microsoft's deals with ISPs to promote IE at the expense of other browsers violated the Sherman Act. 4. The appeals court affirmed that Microsoft's deal with Apple to bundle IE with Mac OS in exchange for the development of the Mac version of Office violated the Sherman Act. (Bill Gates threatened to pull Office for Mac if Mac OS bundled Netscape instead of IE.) 5. The appeals court did not actually address whether tying IE to Windows was an antitrust violation or not. They concluded that it could not be a per se violation, and the issue was remanded back to the district court for further analysis under the rule of reason which would have required additional proceedings, which never happened as Microsoft and the DOJ eventually settled. 6. The appeals court found that the DOJ failed to prove their claim that Microsoft attempted to monopolize the browser market, largely because they failed to provide sufficient evidence that Microsoft had a "dangerous probability" of success. Finally, the reason the penalty was overturned by the appeals court largely had to do with the district court judge not following the correct legal procedures and failing to reasonably justify why such a large penalty (breaking up the company) was warranted. Plus they were really unhappy with that judge going and talking to the media about the case. Yes, ultimately Microsoft was not broken up. After Bush was elected, DOJ policy changed and they decided to no longer pursue the breakup. But it's a bit misleading to say they won the appeal. It's more like: they won a couple claims, they lost a bunch of claims, and the overall penalty was deemed too harsh. (Note: I skipped some details but the full text of the appeal is an interesting read: https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=17987618389090921096 https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=179876183890909...) --- That all being said, it's worth noting that most of the violations affirmed were related to Microsoft's attempts to unlawfully maintain their operating system monopoly which at the time had over 95% market share, not due to their attempts to dominate the browser market. And it's possible that if they had merely included IE with Windows and not taken extra actions to force other companies (OEMs, ISPs, Apple) to bundle IE over Netscape, they may not have have been found liable at all. As applied to the current situation with Apple, it's unlikely that Apple will be exposed to the same liability because they simply don't have the level of monopoly power that Microsoft did at the time.

fjdjsmsm 6y ago

The problem with this argument is the existence of Android. The app ecosystem on Android is not appreciably better than iOS. Opening iOS to third party app store will likely just increase copyright infringement, leading to fewer paid apps.

kevincox 6y ago
I think it is. I have the best of both worlds. Most of the time I download apps from a store that is roughly as safe as the Apple store. (Maybe not quite as high, but I don't think that this changes the argument). However if there is some software that Google doesn't like I can install it myself. Or I can run a patch that some developer posted on GitHub and test it before it has been merged and published. It shows that there is some convenience from a "single" app store, such that people won't flood away and lead to a race to the bottom in quality. But it also shows that you can maintain that experience while allowing users to install whatever they want. So Apple is claiming that allowing people to install whatever they want, or having multiple App Stores will lead to crumbling of the convenient and secure ecosystem that they have created. However Android has shown that this is not the case.
- fjdjsmsm 6y ago
  95% of the public don’t even know what GitHub is. The vast majority of people aren’t going to run patches a developer posted there. Anyway, the argument was that the Apple app store was stifling app development. In your reply you yourself say the apps on the Google store are “Maybe not quite as high” quality.
  - mthoms 6y ago
    That quote was in reference to security, not quality.
  - AnthonyMouse 6y ago
    > 95% of the public don’t even know what GitHub is. The vast majority of people aren’t going to run patches a developer posted there. Which doesn't matter, because the person who is going to test your patch does, or the person who will write their own and submit it. Which makes the app better, for everybody. > Anyway, the argument was that the Apple app store was stifling app development. In your reply you yourself say the apps on the Google store are “Maybe not quite as high” quality. There is a difference between the quality of an app and the quality of a store. If Google Play contains all the same apps as Apple's app store, but they're higher quality because people hack on them more, it could still have a lower average quality if the store itself is less selective and there are also a bunch of lower quality apps. Which doesn't really matter because nobody is making you install those ones. Especially when you're not using the store for discovery to begin with, which they're increasingly useless at.

nemothekid 6y ago

>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. It's hard for me to reconcile this, and I keep seeing that 3rd party app stores would be better for users, but it all seems very handwavy. You would think this would be an easy point to prove as Android has had alternative app stores for years, but there seem to be no winners there. I'm not sure how having to download app specific app stores (i.e. Epic's app store) is better for anyone except for Epic.

gknoy 6y ago
Humble Bundle has an android app that lets you download APKs, and then prompts you to install them. I've used that to install several android games in the past, even for things that are available in different versions on the Play store. It's never showed me pop-up ads, and it's only for installing things that I've already bought via their website. It's not a large store, I expect, and I don't often use it install things, but it seems to be an unambiguous example of something that benefits users. I bought things via Humble, and then am able to install them on any android device I ever have (in theory). If they were to add the ability to actually buy things in the app, it would effectively turn into something with an interface like the Kindle app (which shows me both my library of books, as well as a shopping interface).
LamaOfRuin 6y ago
3rd party stores allowed Amazon to bootstrap the only reasonable android tablet ecosystem and become the second largest tablet maker in the world after Apple. F-droid maintains a modest but robust marketplace of open source software, some of which include things that are not allowed in either Apple or Google app stores. 3rd party stores also allow numerous country-focused stores which arguably serve their home markets better than Google or Apple are willing to.
AnthonyMouse 6y ago
> You would think this would be an easy point to prove as Android has had alternative app stores for years, but there seem to be no winners there. I'm not sure how having to download app specific app stores (i.e. Epic's app store) is better for anyone except for Epic. Let's start with one point. Third party stores don't have to be popular in order for them to be beneficial, because their existence causes the dominant store to take competitive steps to avoid their attaining popularity. For example, you can install actual Firefox on Android, from Google Play, instead of it being nothing but a skin over the system browser like it is on iOS. Because if they didn't allow actual Firefox in Google Play, it would still be in F-Droid or similar, and that would make the competing store more popular. Since they don't want that, they allow it in the default store. Then the default store remains dominant, but only because it does beneficial things like that as a result of the competitive pressure. And third party apps can send and receive SMS on Android and various other things that Apple doesn't allow solely because it pushes people to use Apple's apps instead and there is no competitive pressure from other stores pushing Apple to allow those competing apps in their store. But more than that, the other Android stores are actually useful, they just tend to have a niche. Because people are still going to use the default store unless there is a reason not to, since it's lower friction. But the other stores still get to address the cases that the default store fails at. So the fact that they exist at all is proof that they're doing something useful, since otherwise who would sustain them? > I'm not sure how having to download app specific app stores (i.e. Epic's app store) is better for anyone except for Epic. I mean, the fact that they're not paying Apple 30% and then passing most of that savings on to the customer is obviously going to save the customer money.

yungstevejobs 6y ago

>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. I think the only group that will benefit from 3rd party app stores on iOS is developers. I don’t see end users benefiting at all. The simplicity and convenience in downloading and discovering apps is gone. You said you have trouble discovering apps now with a unified store, so I’m not sure how discovering apps on multiple different app stores will be any easier. Frankly I’m sure it will become much more difficult and complicated for end users. Also I’m not sure how much more convenient Apple can make the App Store for iOS users. Payment information isn’t being shared between multiple parties. Switching payment info doesn’t involve going through each service. Receipts are automatically sent to emails. Automatic app updates. No confusion when it comes to where to download an app. The App Store consistently brings in more money than the play store each year, despite Apple and iOS having a much smaller market share than Google and Android. I attribute this to Apples guidelines and developer tools, but also because of user confidence in the App Store. More people are willing to scan their face or use Touch ID because how simple and convenient IAP is. That and users are aware their payment info isn’t being sent around to multiple parties. I believe everyone arguing for 3rd party app stores on iOS aren’t thinking as the end user. at all. You said that allowing 3rd party stores will benefit end users with innovation, but innovate what exactly ? How much more innovation does the process of finding and downloading apps need? >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. Why should they get in trouble? Let’s not forget that Microsoft only developed one part of the final product(the OS). In Apples case they created every part of the product. The hardware , the software and the market on the software. I think they’re well in their rights to decide what and how 3rd party software gets on their OS..

clusterfish 6y ago
Really. As the end user I don't want to pay Apple a 30% sales tax on all my apps, content and service purchases on a device that I already paid a thousand dollars for. 90% of the reason people are even talking about alternative app stores is because this 30% is extortion made possible by excessive monopolistic power provided by tight vertical integration. If it was 10% no one would blink an eye and it would still be massively profitable for Apple. They're just too fucking greedy, and the amount of their apologists here is insane. The collective hypocrisy of chanting for things like the right to repair while not even recognizing the right to install arbitrary apps on a computing device you paid for in full is just mind boggling. Americans trust everyone with a fucking gun but oh no, being able to install a non-Apple-approved app or - gasp - use a non-apple payment method - will collapse the whole ecosystem. Haha.