4 ms·

Honestly, what is the difference between the App Store and Target? Why should a third party (or court) have any control in what the retailer sells?

my123 6y ago
Because you don't have switching costs if you want to shop at another retailer than Target, at any time.
- eternalban 6y ago
  Were you not aware of this fact when you chose iPhone over Android?
  - my123 6y ago
    Why would that even matter? People's opinions can change over time.
    - eternalban 6y ago
      Of course they can. But he is -not- saying he is denied the right to change his opinion: "Because you don't have switching costs if you want to shop at another retailer than Target, at any time." But this should not be a surprise to an Apple customer. This is a 'feature' of Apple products.
  - Barrin92 6y ago
    Android isn't much better in this regard. There is realistic choice of two smartphone operating system vendors, both of which exercise total and random control over their stores. If you look at the frontpage of HN today, several fediverse apps were just thrown off the Google Play store, so it's a choice between pest and cholera
    - eternalban 6y ago
      Ah, those are just pesky facts. It's so much more fun to play partisan geek. Don't spoil the fun.
  - AnthonyMouse 6y ago
    Being aware of it doesn't mean it was your preference. What if you want an iPhone for the hardware and bought it in spite of rather than because of Apple's restrictions on third party apps? Moreover, the app you want may not have existed when you bought your first iPhone and became locked into the platform. Or it may have been on the iOS app store at that time and was subsequently removed.
  - parsimo2010 6y ago
    I wasn’t aware that Apple would remove an extremely popular app from the app store without giving users any option to continue using it, no. I’m not particularly invested in Fortnite, but if Apple removes one of my favorite apps I’m going to get really cranky at any friend that suggests that I should have planned ahead for what to do if the app dev and the phone maker got in fight years after I bought my phone.
gsich 6y ago
You don't need Target to get your stuff. You can just buy somewhere else. Try that on iOS.
2OEH8eoCRo0 6y ago
This would be like if there were one single store on the planet and if they don't want to sell your shit everyone just says, "That's their right, shouldn't have gotten into the business of selling things."
- DivisionSol 6y ago
  But there are 2 stores, and you make the choice of packaging for one or the other. You can also make your own store, if you want. (In this analogy, that is. You cannot make a store inside a store, that’d be silly.) Basically, you can still sell on Android, or, make your own phone/mobile operating system?
  - anticensor 6y ago
    > a store inside a store Shopping malls owned by supermarket companies do exactly that. A hypermarket in the centre, owned by the supermarket company itself, and hundreds of smaller stores around, operated by others in the same building.
kxrm 6y ago
Target doesn't have exclusive rights to control the the way I accessorize products I buy from them.
renlo 6y ago
What happens when Target is the only store that 13.5% of the population can access? What happens if it become 25%? 50%? 100%? At what threshold is it proper to put in restrictions on Target?
- microtherion 6y ago
  My understanding is that Walmart is effectively the only retailer in many rural areas of the US (Though I don't know about specific statistics).
  - DetroitThrow 6y ago
    This is true, and perhaps consumers in those areas should have more control over the choices that business provides. National corporations with local monopolies are often the least critiqued anti-consumer actor.
gambiting 6y ago
They shouldn't, but it's not about that. Apple can sell whatever they like or don't on the Apple Store, that's fine. The problem is that they sell consumers a "general computing" device, and then enforcing that every single transaction on said device goes through them. They are not only processing those transactions, not only taking a cut, but also deciding which ones are ok and which ones aren't. Meaning, that if you and me wanted to do business together selling iOS apps, we would need to get blessing from apple. The argument here is that maybe it shouldn't be like this. After all, we don't need to ask Microsoft for permission for the same thing, and on Android if I don't like the rules established by Google, I can put my app on the Amazon store, one of the many 3rd party ones, or just send my customers the .apk directly - Google cannot stop two parties from conducting business, they can merely offer a convenient alternative that involves google getting a cut. Of course apple will respond with argument that this tight control is beneficial to customers - and they are welcome to make such argument.
- HatchedLake721 6y ago
  We tried that with Windows Mobile, xda-developers and cab files before. It didn’t work.
- xphilter 6y ago
  So there should be a law that says any computing device must be free to load any software? So PS4 must play XBox games? Printers must accept any ink cartridge? Apple Watch should allow any android app? What’s the distinction? (I’m not trying to be obtuse). I buy iPhone specifically for the walled garden. I don’t want to have to worry about malware etc like I do on my PCs/MacBook. And again—-going back to the Walmart/Target analogy, if you wanted to enter into a business deal with a third party in a Walmart, Walmart would demand a cut too.
  - gambiting 6y ago
    >>So there should be a law that says any computing device must be free to load any software? No, that's not what I said. I said general computing device. For a lot of people nowadays, their phone or tablet is the only computing device they have. The argument here is that Apple is stopping two sides from engaging in a fully legal business transaction. Epic wants to sell you their game, you want to buy that game. The fact that it's running on a device manufactured by Apple is only tangential here - Apple should have the freedom to run their app store however they see fit, but Epic's argument is that they shouldn't be a gatekeeper to allowing and purchasing applications on their devices, because that stifles competition and innovation on the market(which the government is trying to protect). I think it's really well explained here[0] It's as if Nescafe tried to forbid anyone from making capsules that work in their machines - their argument could be the same, we made the machine, our capsules guarantee correct operation and quality standard, therefore our machines shouldn't work with anything else. And yet....it would be illegal for them to do so, just like it is illegal for a car manufacturer to forbid you from using 3rd party replacement parts. They can void your warranty, sure, but they legally cannot forbid you from fitting 3rd party replacements. But it's about freedom of choice - if you want to buy original Mercedes parts, you can. If you only want to buy apps vetted and approved by apple - you can. >> I buy iPhone specifically for the walled garden. I don’t want to have to worry about malware etc like I do on my PCs/MacBook. Literally no one wants to take this away from you. If you want to only install apps from the App Store that have gone through apple's approval process - please continue to do so. >>So PS4 must play XBox games? Printers must accept any ink cartridge? Apple Watch should allow any android app? What’s the distinction? The distinction isn't that everything should be compatible with everything. Just that anyone should be allowed to make software for anything, which the platform holders are trying to forbid. Apple is just the first one - but I'd hope that eventually the same argument will be made against Microsoft and Sony and yes, you will be allowed to make a game for PS4/Xbox without having to explicitly ask those companies for approval. The example with the printer is an interesting one, because like I mentioned earlier - manufacturers cannot forbid you from neither making replacement cartridges for their printers, nor from you using them. The ability to do so for hardware has been enshrined in law for a long time. Why not for software? [0] https://stratechery.com/2020/rethinking-the-app-store/ https://stratechery.com/2020/rethinking-the-app-store/
jpambrun 6y ago
For your analogy to make sense we would have to have alternative stores to buy iOS apps from. If target was the only store in the world it should not be able to set itself whatever profit margin it wants..
Hammershaft 6y ago
Target might exist alongside several other competing retailers on the same block. The friction for a customer to leave and shop at a competing retailer is low. To extend this analogy, The Apple store exists in a company town, and the friction for a customer to leave 'Appletown' shop at competing retailers in 'AndroidLand' is intentionally as high as possible [1]. This is not an argument as for what (if any) kind of control third parties should have over the App Store as retailer, it's an argument for why this current arrangement is exploitative, and not analogous to conventional retail platforms like Target. [1] - https://9to5mac.com/2020/07/30/internal-emails-show-how-an-amazon-ad-prompted-steve-jobs-and-phil-schiller-to-block-in-app-purchases-of-kindle-books-on-ios/ https://9to5mac.com/2020/07/30/internal-emails-show-how-an-a...
- scarface74 6y ago
  iPhones exist right next Android phones in every carrier store. The only place you will see that exclusively sells iPhones are Apple stores.
  - Hammershaft 6y ago
    That doesn't have much bearing on the cost of switching considering most of that friction is borne of investment into a particular platform and the intentional difficulty in migrating to another platform. This is the central caveat of walled gardens, the walls do not only serve to keep unwanted things outside, they also serve to keep you inside. The analogy to a company town is apt. When you embarked for a town, both AndroidLand and Appletown were the same distance away, but now that you have settled down the prospect of migrating outside is considerably more difficult.
    - scarface74 6y ago
      What high cost of switching? There are hardly any popular iOS only apps or popular apps that people paid for instead of buying a subscription that works cross platform. As far as media that you bought, music that you bought on iTunes has been DRM free for almost a decade. Even with movies, you can blame the lock in on the studios that don’t participate in “Movies Anywhere”. Any movie from the participating studios that you buy on Prime Video, Google Play, Vudu, or iTunes is automatically considered purchased on the other platforms. Most of the money being spent on the App Store are from in app consumables.

my123 6y ago

Because you don't have switching costs if you want to shop at another retailer than Target, at any time.

eternalban 6y ago
Were you not aware of this fact when you chose iPhone over Android?
- my123 6y ago
  Why would that even matter? People's opinions can change over time.
  - eternalban 6y ago
    Of course they can. But he is -not- saying he is denied the right to change his opinion: "Because you don't have switching costs if you want to shop at another retailer than Target, at any time." But this should not be a surprise to an Apple customer. This is a 'feature' of Apple products.
- Barrin92 6y ago
  Android isn't much better in this regard. There is realistic choice of two smartphone operating system vendors, both of which exercise total and random control over their stores. If you look at the frontpage of HN today, several fediverse apps were just thrown off the Google Play store, so it's a choice between pest and cholera
  - eternalban 6y ago
    Ah, those are just pesky facts. It's so much more fun to play partisan geek. Don't spoil the fun.
- AnthonyMouse 6y ago
  Being aware of it doesn't mean it was your preference. What if you want an iPhone for the hardware and bought it in spite of rather than because of Apple's restrictions on third party apps? Moreover, the app you want may not have existed when you bought your first iPhone and became locked into the platform. Or it may have been on the iOS app store at that time and was subsequently removed.
- parsimo2010 6y ago
  I wasn’t aware that Apple would remove an extremely popular app from the app store without giving users any option to continue using it, no. I’m not particularly invested in Fortnite, but if Apple removes one of my favorite apps I’m going to get really cranky at any friend that suggests that I should have planned ahead for what to do if the app dev and the phone maker got in fight years after I bought my phone.

gsich 6y ago

You don't need Target to get your stuff. You can just buy somewhere else. Try that on iOS.

2OEH8eoCRo0 6y ago

This would be like if there were one single store on the planet and if they don't want to sell your shit everyone just says, "That's their right, shouldn't have gotten into the business of selling things."

DivisionSol 6y ago
But there are 2 stores, and you make the choice of packaging for one or the other. You can also make your own store, if you want. (In this analogy, that is. You cannot make a store inside a store, that’d be silly.) Basically, you can still sell on Android, or, make your own phone/mobile operating system?
- anticensor 6y ago
  > a store inside a store Shopping malls owned by supermarket companies do exactly that. A hypermarket in the centre, owned by the supermarket company itself, and hundreds of smaller stores around, operated by others in the same building.

kxrm 6y ago

Target doesn't have exclusive rights to control the the way I accessorize products I buy from them.

renlo 6y ago

What happens when Target is the only store that 13.5% of the population can access? What happens if it become 25%? 50%? 100%? At what threshold is it proper to put in restrictions on Target?

microtherion 6y ago
My understanding is that Walmart is effectively the only retailer in many rural areas of the US (Though I don't know about specific statistics).
- DetroitThrow 6y ago
  This is true, and perhaps consumers in those areas should have more control over the choices that business provides. National corporations with local monopolies are often the least critiqued anti-consumer actor.

gambiting 6y ago

They shouldn't, but it's not about that. Apple can sell whatever they like or don't on the Apple Store, that's fine. The problem is that they sell consumers a "general computing" device, and then enforcing that every single transaction on said device goes through them. They are not only processing those transactions, not only taking a cut, but also deciding which ones are ok and which ones aren't. Meaning, that if you and me wanted to do business together selling iOS apps, we would need to get blessing from apple. The argument here is that maybe it shouldn't be like this. After all, we don't need to ask Microsoft for permission for the same thing, and on Android if I don't like the rules established by Google, I can put my app on the Amazon store, one of the many 3rd party ones, or just send my customers the .apk directly - Google cannot stop two parties from conducting business, they can merely offer a convenient alternative that involves google getting a cut. Of course apple will respond with argument that this tight control is beneficial to customers - and they are welcome to make such argument.

HatchedLake721 6y ago
We tried that with Windows Mobile, xda-developers and cab files before. It didn’t work.
xphilter 6y ago
So there should be a law that says any computing device must be free to load any software? So PS4 must play XBox games? Printers must accept any ink cartridge? Apple Watch should allow any android app? What’s the distinction? (I’m not trying to be obtuse). I buy iPhone specifically for the walled garden. I don’t want to have to worry about malware etc like I do on my PCs/MacBook. And again—-going back to the Walmart/Target analogy, if you wanted to enter into a business deal with a third party in a Walmart, Walmart would demand a cut too.
- gambiting 6y ago
  >>So there should be a law that says any computing device must be free to load any software? No, that's not what I said. I said general computing device. For a lot of people nowadays, their phone or tablet is the only computing device they have. The argument here is that Apple is stopping two sides from engaging in a fully legal business transaction. Epic wants to sell you their game, you want to buy that game. The fact that it's running on a device manufactured by Apple is only tangential here - Apple should have the freedom to run their app store however they see fit, but Epic's argument is that they shouldn't be a gatekeeper to allowing and purchasing applications on their devices, because that stifles competition and innovation on the market(which the government is trying to protect). I think it's really well explained here[0] It's as if Nescafe tried to forbid anyone from making capsules that work in their machines - their argument could be the same, we made the machine, our capsules guarantee correct operation and quality standard, therefore our machines shouldn't work with anything else. And yet....it would be illegal for them to do so, just like it is illegal for a car manufacturer to forbid you from using 3rd party replacement parts. They can void your warranty, sure, but they legally cannot forbid you from fitting 3rd party replacements. But it's about freedom of choice - if you want to buy original Mercedes parts, you can. If you only want to buy apps vetted and approved by apple - you can. >> I buy iPhone specifically for the walled garden. I don’t want to have to worry about malware etc like I do on my PCs/MacBook. Literally no one wants to take this away from you. If you want to only install apps from the App Store that have gone through apple's approval process - please continue to do so. >>So PS4 must play XBox games? Printers must accept any ink cartridge? Apple Watch should allow any android app? What’s the distinction? The distinction isn't that everything should be compatible with everything. Just that anyone should be allowed to make software for anything, which the platform holders are trying to forbid. Apple is just the first one - but I'd hope that eventually the same argument will be made against Microsoft and Sony and yes, you will be allowed to make a game for PS4/Xbox without having to explicitly ask those companies for approval. The example with the printer is an interesting one, because like I mentioned earlier - manufacturers cannot forbid you from neither making replacement cartridges for their printers, nor from you using them. The ability to do so for hardware has been enshrined in law for a long time. Why not for software? [0] https://stratechery.com/2020/rethinking-the-app-store/ https://stratechery.com/2020/rethinking-the-app-store/

jpambrun 6y ago

For your analogy to make sense we would have to have alternative stores to buy iOS apps from. If target was the only store in the world it should not be able to set itself whatever profit margin it wants..

Hammershaft 6y ago

Target might exist alongside several other competing retailers on the same block. The friction for a customer to leave and shop at a competing retailer is low. To extend this analogy, The Apple store exists in a company town, and the friction for a customer to leave 'Appletown' shop at competing retailers in 'AndroidLand' is intentionally as high as possible [1]. This is not an argument as for what (if any) kind of control third parties should have over the App Store as retailer, it's an argument for why this current arrangement is exploitative, and not analogous to conventional retail platforms like Target. [1] - https://9to5mac.com/2020/07/30/internal-emails-show-how-an-amazon-ad-prompted-steve-jobs-and-phil-schiller-to-block-in-app-purchases-of-kindle-books-on-ios/ https://9to5mac.com/2020/07/30/internal-emails-show-how-an-a...

scarface74 6y ago
iPhones exist right next Android phones in every carrier store. The only place you will see that exclusively sells iPhones are Apple stores.
- Hammershaft 6y ago
  That doesn't have much bearing on the cost of switching considering most of that friction is borne of investment into a particular platform and the intentional difficulty in migrating to another platform. This is the central caveat of walled gardens, the walls do not only serve to keep unwanted things outside, they also serve to keep you inside. The analogy to a company town is apt. When you embarked for a town, both AndroidLand and Appletown were the same distance away, but now that you have settled down the prospect of migrating outside is considerably more difficult.
  - scarface74 6y ago
    What high cost of switching? There are hardly any popular iOS only apps or popular apps that people paid for instead of buying a subscription that works cross platform. As far as media that you bought, music that you bought on iTunes has been DRM free for almost a decade. Even with movies, you can blame the lock in on the studios that don’t participate in “Movies Anywhere”. Any movie from the participating studios that you buy on Prime Video, Google Play, Vudu, or iTunes is automatically considered purchased on the other platforms. Most of the money being spent on the App Store are from in app consumables.