7 ms·

I don't get why on Hackernews anyone would ever defend Apple here. Regardless of whether they're right to do this if Epic wins their court case against them we

I don't get why on Hackernews anyone would ever defend Apple here. Regardless of whether they're right to do this if Epic wins their court case against them we stand to gain the most benefit. Apple's incredibly high walled garden is honestly the scariest thing for me. If I develop for windows I can simply distribute my application on my site easily. With Android I can tell people to download from F-Droid if necessary. With MacOS We're nearly at the point that Apple will tell us and users what we can and cannot install or develop for the system. iOS and iPad OS are already there. Epic caused their own pain here, sure but What other way can we actually get a semi open platform that we're not being taxed on? Why can't we as users and developers have options on iOS? I think that if an operating system allows third party apps they should be _legally_ required to allow other app stores, sideloading of programs without penalty for doing so, or both. That goes for any platform, developed at any time by anyone. I have been completely at a loss for anyone defending Apple while hoping that Epic loses their fight. The first makes sense but the second is absolutely baffling.

lolsal 6y ago
> Epic caused their own pain here, sure but What other way can we actually get a semi open platform that we're not being taxed on? As an Apple user, the whole point here is that it's not an open system. I just can't get riled up over a developer not following the rules of a platform. I use Apple because the Apple ecosystem is valuable to me - the store, the SSO, the Apple ID, the UI/UX, the hardware - all of it. I don't care about Epic or any other developer that doesn't want to play nice with that ecosystem. Those kinds of developers don't have any value to me.
- losingthefight 6y ago
  I see this argument a lot, and I think it's fine if not a tad flawed. If that's what you want, you can keep it. I don't really see anyone saying "kill the review process" and "open everything by default". This would all go away if Apple simply made it a setting to allow other IPAs AND allowed outside payment / subscription management. Keep the garden if you want it. Don't enable outside installs. If you don't want to support a company not using Apple Pay and the like, then don't! You're the consumer! The difference here is Apple doesn't give you a choice. Even if the developer does all the legwork to build a payment system (for example, they have a web app as well) and market the app on their own, they have to give Apple their cut. You don't get a choice and neither does the developer.
  - jakebasile 6y ago
    That's not how it would work though. You'd see things similar to what Epic themselves did on Android originally, where they required people who wanted to play Fortnite to download the APK directly from Epic, which of course led to hundreds of fake and infected apps on the net, harming users.
    - thekyle 6y ago
      So which is better: having no Fortnite at all or having no Fortnite in the App Store with the option to sideload. If you strictly want to stay in the App Store then nothing changes for you and the situation is neither worse nor better. If you just want to play Fortnite on your iPhone and don't care about the App Store then the latter option is a better.
      - judge2020 6y ago
        The last part of the GP comment still stands: > which of course led to hundreds of fake and infected apps on the net, harming users. > If you just want to play Fortnite on your iPhone and don't care about the App Store then the latter option is a better. Not unless you get a Fortnite that has an ad at the bottom of the screen and ships as much PII as it can to some third-party company, or offers 2x v-bucks and steals CC info.
        donmcronald 6y ago
        > which of course led to hundreds of fake and infected apps on the net, harming users. The app stores are facilitating that in a way though. They're keeping the users as dumb as possible and not making any effort to differentiate between legitimate or malicious apps that are sideloaded. If it were a matter of going to epicgames.com, clicking "Install for Android", and confirming a prompt that says "You're about to install an app from epicgames.com", I think it would be a lot easier to train users to understand that.
      - pfranz 6y ago
        > So which is better: having no Fortnite at all or having no Fortnite in the App Store with the option to sideload It's too simplistic and disingenuous to present it that way. Last month there was Fornite in the App Store and no option to sideload. Right now I count 34 Adobe apps in the Apple's phone App Store. I'm very confident if this precedent is set Adobe will have their own app store and very likely will not have anything but a placeholder in Apple's App Store.
- grumple 6y ago
  As an Apple user, I think you’re crazy. It being locked down is the worst part about it and the main reason I’m considering moving off Apple in the future. Also as a developer deploying anything Apple-related is a pain.
  - lolsal 6y ago
    > As an Apple user, I think you’re crazy. It being locked down is the worst part about it and the main reason I’m considering moving off Apple in the future. If it makes you feel any better, I have never, ever, felt "locked down" in the Apple ecosystem. We must live very different lives because I never think about my phone - I think about messaging people, sending emails, looking something up on the web, getting directions, etc. Things I like and enjoy using are there and amazing. I don't have to worry about scummy devs like Epic, or side-loading malware because it's cool, or jailbreaking so I can put drop shadows on random things. If you need those features you should have picked a device that supported those features. I don't, so I don't care about things like that because they bring me no value. Managing your devices and apps is expensive in terms of time and attention costs. It's not worth it to me. > Also as a developer deploying anything Apple-related is a pain. I would challenge this or at least dismiss this as an opinion - I have apps in both the iOS and Android stores and deploying on iOS is a breeze compared to Android.
    - grumple 6y ago
      > scummy devs like Epic What makes them scummy? They want to make money without paying Apple's 30% (for what? hosting the app would cost Epic very little, payment processing costs < 3% from anywhere). > side-loading malware because it's cool, or jailbreaking so I can put drop shadows on random things The whole point is that you shouldn't need to side-load or jail-break anything. You can put any app you want on your pc or linux machine. And no, we aren't all operating with tons of malware on those machines. > they bring me no value. Do you pay for any apps? Wouldn't them costing 20% less bring you value in a very literal, "more money in your bank account" sense? > I would challenge this or at least dismiss this as an opinion - I have apps in both the iOS and Android stores and deploying on iOS is a breeze compared to Android. This is simply not true. It's not a matter of opinion, there are fewer steps/fields to fill out and less time involved in deploying an Android app. Android also charges less.
- curiousmindz 6y ago
  Let's forget about this current case, and think in general: Do you think that the Apple ecosystem could get better? Surely, there are improvements that would be a net positive for you? Now, what if what Epic is doing results in an improvement in the Apple ecosystem? Ultimately, you can only say that this case has no value to you if you can reason that there is no way that it will make things better for you, and that's a very tough thing to prove without a crystal ball :) Still, you certainly don't have to put all that much thought into this. At the end of the day, there are far more important things in life.
  - lolsal 6y ago
    > Ultimately, you can only say that this case has no value to you if you can reason that there is no way that it will make things better for you, and that's a very tough thing to prove without a crystal ball :) You're inverting the relationship. These things have value because I don't have to care about side loading garbage IPAs or devs injecting malware, etc. etc. I don't care about sone random developer's "improvements". Just give me what I paid for and that's all I care about. Hint: Part of what I pay for is: "play nice with apple, because that's what I expect."
    - drenvuk 6y ago
      Are you even a developer? Do you have any technical background past HTML and js?
      - lolsal 6y ago
        Yes. I've been in software for just over 20 years, in the network security sector for the last 7. Did you have a point to present or just an attempted attack on me personally?
- subsection1h 6y ago
  Hacker News in 2020: Where "hackers" prefer closed systems and perceive no value in developers who don't want to "play nice" with closed systems.
  - mhh__ 6y ago
    How else am I supposed to mention how many thousands of dollars of apple gear I've got!?
  - lolsal 6y ago
    It's a fallacy to think you can play gatekeeper regarding 'hacking' just because I (or more generally the HN audience) like and value one phone ecosystem over another. Surely you knew that already though, right?
    - drenvuk 6y ago
      He's not playing gatekeeper. Hackers have generally been known to like open systems or to force closed ones open. Just look at history. You're talking about a phone ecosystem, he's talking about a closed ecosystem.
      - lolsal 6y ago
        They are implying I'm not a hacker because I like the Apple ecosystem, aren't they?
        drenvuk 6y ago
        They're implying that you're not a hacker because you appear to lack the hacker's mindset. Maybe you have it for some interests but not others but from the hackers that I've seen it's usually a driver for much of their technology interaction.
  - carlhjerpe 6y ago
    It's really a can't eat the cake and have it too problem. We want hackability but we also want convenience and feeling save (Trust). On Linux dists this trust is put in the opensource developers and distro maintainers. When you need to build something yourself the source is open for you to see. Developers and maintainers take pride in their work. On the mobile platform it seems from my point of view like more development is fueled by profit. If you combine profit seeking with sideloading proprietary applications i believe the end result would cause iPhone sales to drop as their USP no longer holds true (conveniece for the everyday user not having to deal with security, trust, payment processors). I am using Android as I've been for the last couple of years for this hackability, but i rely more on F-Droid than Play Store. I understand both Apples and Epics point of view, standard consumer would probably be hurt by Epic getting their way while HN crowd would benefit (possibly short term only) from Epic getting their way. One thing to keep in mind is that there's a reason why Apple is doing this, and it rhymes well with what every single person i know says about the iPhone. It's simple, it just works, you know how to use it, It's convenient. All these things sound like things one can only achieve in a walled garden. Apple does what's best for their shareholders, and what's best for their shareholders is if people stay happy with their iPhones and keep purchasing them. I'll stick to Android and all the associated spyware until there's a proper opensource alternative for day2day use and some decent music streaming service available.
m3kw9 6y ago
Closed platforms have their disadvantages and advantages for user and devs. I want to see Apple win because they created this whole thing and always had the 30/70 till someone with a stink eye thinks they are making too much.
- kinkrtyavimoodh 6y ago
  No, everyone thought they make so much. It took someone big enough and immune enough to challenge it. You won't expect the single-parent-of-two type of developer to even hope of touching Apple. That sort of developer has no alternative but to keep paying the Apple 'tax'. It's no different than general purpose extortion.
Dayshine 6y ago
This community is dominated by people who work for unicorns, believe their company is almost a unicorn, or dream they could one day work for one. As much as we deny it, companies only tend to get that big through anti-consumer behaviour, walled gardens, vendor lock-in, etc. When your life's purpose revolves around the absolute power your dream requires, of course you will defend it. The fact that allowing other companies to behave this way makes it harder for you to do well is irrelevant, because you need that power for when you're in their place.
- Slartie 6y ago
  I think you are spot on, but that your explanation is only one half of the truth. The other is that a lot of people in this community despise "manual intervention" into algorithmic systems, as in lawyers and judges ordering Apple to change their perfectly integrated, fully controlled app store deployment system, which radiates some kind of "elegance", especially when compared to Google's less well integrated (and less sealed) system. It is a bit like the fascination for smart contracts - purely algorithmic elegance, ideally without any human intervention, is considered "beautiful" and there is an urge to defend such a thing against "dirty" human influence - especially if those humans are of a different profession than we are (like, lawyers, or economists, all those non-technical people who don't understand all this stuff anyway). Of course the truth is that smart contracts are close to useless without human intervention (see: the oracle problem), their inability to be changed is more problematic than useful because humans make mistakes writing them or change their mind later or are forced by law to change it, and Apple's app store system is already riddled with exceptions for entities that even Apple can't deny too many wishes (see: exceptions for Amazon) and weird constructs that draw artificial, blurred and very much human-defined lines in order to fix contradicting or nonsensical rules (see: the so-called "reader" app exceptions). But all of this is easily ignored when necessary to construct a seemingly contradiction-free world view and picking a "side". Also a very human imperfection...
chj 6y ago
I was confused too, then I tried to picture them as AAPL holders, and it makes me feel more comfortable ever since.
hapticmonkey 6y ago
Apple's defense is that their walled garden and strict rules are what's stopping their ecosystem from becoming a cesspool of scams or fake or harmful apps. Users (who are not "power users") trust Apple's ecosystem. The user experience of installing from their app store and using their sign in method is so much better than the experience of installing from the web and signing in via other methods. It frustrates me that the entire industry failed to create a suitable sign-in option and Apple felt they had to step in to create something with good UX while respecting users' privacy. I'd love for the iOS ecosystem to open up more, but I also know it would be exploited easily and create an industry-wide race-to-the-bottom for UX and privacy.
- donmcronald 6y ago
  You're taking on risk for that sign in convenience though. What do you do if Apple bans your account? If the services you're using have absolutely zero info about you, how do you prove who you are and get your account back?

lolsal 6y ago

> Epic caused their own pain here, sure but What other way can we actually get a semi open platform that we're not being taxed on? As an Apple user, the whole point here is that it's not an open system. I just can't get riled up over a developer not following the rules of a platform. I use Apple because the Apple ecosystem is valuable to me - the store, the SSO, the Apple ID, the UI/UX, the hardware - all of it. I don't care about Epic or any other developer that doesn't want to play nice with that ecosystem. Those kinds of developers don't have any value to me.

losingthefight 6y ago
I see this argument a lot, and I think it's fine if not a tad flawed. If that's what you want, you can keep it. I don't really see anyone saying "kill the review process" and "open everything by default". This would all go away if Apple simply made it a setting to allow other IPAs AND allowed outside payment / subscription management. Keep the garden if you want it. Don't enable outside installs. If you don't want to support a company not using Apple Pay and the like, then don't! You're the consumer! The difference here is Apple doesn't give you a choice. Even if the developer does all the legwork to build a payment system (for example, they have a web app as well) and market the app on their own, they have to give Apple their cut. You don't get a choice and neither does the developer.
- jakebasile 6y ago
  That's not how it would work though. You'd see things similar to what Epic themselves did on Android originally, where they required people who wanted to play Fortnite to download the APK directly from Epic, which of course led to hundreds of fake and infected apps on the net, harming users.
  - thekyle 6y ago
    So which is better: having no Fortnite at all or having no Fortnite in the App Store with the option to sideload. If you strictly want to stay in the App Store then nothing changes for you and the situation is neither worse nor better. If you just want to play Fortnite on your iPhone and don't care about the App Store then the latter option is a better.
    - judge2020 6y ago
      The last part of the GP comment still stands: > which of course led to hundreds of fake and infected apps on the net, harming users. > If you just want to play Fortnite on your iPhone and don't care about the App Store then the latter option is a better. Not unless you get a Fortnite that has an ad at the bottom of the screen and ships as much PII as it can to some third-party company, or offers 2x v-bucks and steals CC info.
      - donmcronald 6y ago
        > which of course led to hundreds of fake and infected apps on the net, harming users. The app stores are facilitating that in a way though. They're keeping the users as dumb as possible and not making any effort to differentiate between legitimate or malicious apps that are sideloaded. If it were a matter of going to epicgames.com, clicking "Install for Android", and confirming a prompt that says "You're about to install an app from epicgames.com", I think it would be a lot easier to train users to understand that.
    - pfranz 6y ago
      > So which is better: having no Fortnite at all or having no Fortnite in the App Store with the option to sideload It's too simplistic and disingenuous to present it that way. Last month there was Fornite in the App Store and no option to sideload. Right now I count 34 Adobe apps in the Apple's phone App Store. I'm very confident if this precedent is set Adobe will have their own app store and very likely will not have anything but a placeholder in Apple's App Store.
grumple 6y ago
As an Apple user, I think you’re crazy. It being locked down is the worst part about it and the main reason I’m considering moving off Apple in the future. Also as a developer deploying anything Apple-related is a pain.
- lolsal 6y ago
  > As an Apple user, I think you’re crazy. It being locked down is the worst part about it and the main reason I’m considering moving off Apple in the future. If it makes you feel any better, I have never, ever, felt "locked down" in the Apple ecosystem. We must live very different lives because I never think about my phone - I think about messaging people, sending emails, looking something up on the web, getting directions, etc. Things I like and enjoy using are there and amazing. I don't have to worry about scummy devs like Epic, or side-loading malware because it's cool, or jailbreaking so I can put drop shadows on random things. If you need those features you should have picked a device that supported those features. I don't, so I don't care about things like that because they bring me no value. Managing your devices and apps is expensive in terms of time and attention costs. It's not worth it to me. > Also as a developer deploying anything Apple-related is a pain. I would challenge this or at least dismiss this as an opinion - I have apps in both the iOS and Android stores and deploying on iOS is a breeze compared to Android.
  - grumple 6y ago
    > scummy devs like Epic What makes them scummy? They want to make money without paying Apple's 30% (for what? hosting the app would cost Epic very little, payment processing costs < 3% from anywhere). > side-loading malware because it's cool, or jailbreaking so I can put drop shadows on random things The whole point is that you shouldn't need to side-load or jail-break anything. You can put any app you want on your pc or linux machine. And no, we aren't all operating with tons of malware on those machines. > they bring me no value. Do you pay for any apps? Wouldn't them costing 20% less bring you value in a very literal, "more money in your bank account" sense? > I would challenge this or at least dismiss this as an opinion - I have apps in both the iOS and Android stores and deploying on iOS is a breeze compared to Android. This is simply not true. It's not a matter of opinion, there are fewer steps/fields to fill out and less time involved in deploying an Android app. Android also charges less.
curiousmindz 6y ago
Let's forget about this current case, and think in general: Do you think that the Apple ecosystem could get better? Surely, there are improvements that would be a net positive for you? Now, what if what Epic is doing results in an improvement in the Apple ecosystem? Ultimately, you can only say that this case has no value to you if you can reason that there is no way that it will make things better for you, and that's a very tough thing to prove without a crystal ball :) Still, you certainly don't have to put all that much thought into this. At the end of the day, there are far more important things in life.
- lolsal 6y ago
  > Ultimately, you can only say that this case has no value to you if you can reason that there is no way that it will make things better for you, and that's a very tough thing to prove without a crystal ball :) You're inverting the relationship. These things have value because I don't have to care about side loading garbage IPAs or devs injecting malware, etc. etc. I don't care about sone random developer's "improvements". Just give me what I paid for and that's all I care about. Hint: Part of what I pay for is: "play nice with apple, because that's what I expect."
  - drenvuk 6y ago
    Are you even a developer? Do you have any technical background past HTML and js?
    - lolsal 6y ago
      Yes. I've been in software for just over 20 years, in the network security sector for the last 7. Did you have a point to present or just an attempted attack on me personally?
subsection1h 6y ago
Hacker News in 2020: Where "hackers" prefer closed systems and perceive no value in developers who don't want to "play nice" with closed systems.
- mhh__ 6y ago
  How else am I supposed to mention how many thousands of dollars of apple gear I've got!?
- lolsal 6y ago
  It's a fallacy to think you can play gatekeeper regarding 'hacking' just because I (or more generally the HN audience) like and value one phone ecosystem over another. Surely you knew that already though, right?
  - drenvuk 6y ago
    He's not playing gatekeeper. Hackers have generally been known to like open systems or to force closed ones open. Just look at history. You're talking about a phone ecosystem, he's talking about a closed ecosystem.
    - lolsal 6y ago
      They are implying I'm not a hacker because I like the Apple ecosystem, aren't they?
      - drenvuk 6y ago
        They're implying that you're not a hacker because you appear to lack the hacker's mindset. Maybe you have it for some interests but not others but from the hackers that I've seen it's usually a driver for much of their technology interaction.
- carlhjerpe 6y ago
  It's really a can't eat the cake and have it too problem. We want hackability but we also want convenience and feeling save (Trust). On Linux dists this trust is put in the opensource developers and distro maintainers. When you need to build something yourself the source is open for you to see. Developers and maintainers take pride in their work. On the mobile platform it seems from my point of view like more development is fueled by profit. If you combine profit seeking with sideloading proprietary applications i believe the end result would cause iPhone sales to drop as their USP no longer holds true (conveniece for the everyday user not having to deal with security, trust, payment processors). I am using Android as I've been for the last couple of years for this hackability, but i rely more on F-Droid than Play Store. I understand both Apples and Epics point of view, standard consumer would probably be hurt by Epic getting their way while HN crowd would benefit (possibly short term only) from Epic getting their way. One thing to keep in mind is that there's a reason why Apple is doing this, and it rhymes well with what every single person i know says about the iPhone. It's simple, it just works, you know how to use it, It's convenient. All these things sound like things one can only achieve in a walled garden. Apple does what's best for their shareholders, and what's best for their shareholders is if people stay happy with their iPhones and keep purchasing them. I'll stick to Android and all the associated spyware until there's a proper opensource alternative for day2day use and some decent music streaming service available.

m3kw9 6y ago

Closed platforms have their disadvantages and advantages for user and devs. I want to see Apple win because they created this whole thing and always had the 30/70 till someone with a stink eye thinks they are making too much.

kinkrtyavimoodh 6y ago
No, everyone thought they make so much. It took someone big enough and immune enough to challenge it. You won't expect the single-parent-of-two type of developer to even hope of touching Apple. That sort of developer has no alternative but to keep paying the Apple 'tax'. It's no different than general purpose extortion.

Dayshine 6y ago

This community is dominated by people who work for unicorns, believe their company is almost a unicorn, or dream they could one day work for one. As much as we deny it, companies only tend to get that big through anti-consumer behaviour, walled gardens, vendor lock-in, etc. When your life's purpose revolves around the absolute power your dream requires, of course you will defend it. The fact that allowing other companies to behave this way makes it harder for you to do well is irrelevant, because you need that power for when you're in their place.

Slartie 6y ago
I think you are spot on, but that your explanation is only one half of the truth. The other is that a lot of people in this community despise "manual intervention" into algorithmic systems, as in lawyers and judges ordering Apple to change their perfectly integrated, fully controlled app store deployment system, which radiates some kind of "elegance", especially when compared to Google's less well integrated (and less sealed) system. It is a bit like the fascination for smart contracts - purely algorithmic elegance, ideally without any human intervention, is considered "beautiful" and there is an urge to defend such a thing against "dirty" human influence - especially if those humans are of a different profession than we are (like, lawyers, or economists, all those non-technical people who don't understand all this stuff anyway). Of course the truth is that smart contracts are close to useless without human intervention (see: the oracle problem), their inability to be changed is more problematic than useful because humans make mistakes writing them or change their mind later or are forced by law to change it, and Apple's app store system is already riddled with exceptions for entities that even Apple can't deny too many wishes (see: exceptions for Amazon) and weird constructs that draw artificial, blurred and very much human-defined lines in order to fix contradicting or nonsensical rules (see: the so-called "reader" app exceptions). But all of this is easily ignored when necessary to construct a seemingly contradiction-free world view and picking a "side". Also a very human imperfection...

chj 6y ago

I was confused too, then I tried to picture them as AAPL holders, and it makes me feel more comfortable ever since.

hapticmonkey 6y ago

Apple's defense is that their walled garden and strict rules are what's stopping their ecosystem from becoming a cesspool of scams or fake or harmful apps. Users (who are not "power users") trust Apple's ecosystem. The user experience of installing from their app store and using their sign in method is so much better than the experience of installing from the web and signing in via other methods. It frustrates me that the entire industry failed to create a suitable sign-in option and Apple felt they had to step in to create something with good UX while respecting users' privacy. I'd love for the iOS ecosystem to open up more, but I also know it would be exploited easily and create an industry-wide race-to-the-bottom for UX and privacy.

donmcronald 6y ago
You're taking on risk for that sign in convenience though. What do you do if Apple bans your account? If the services you're using have absolutely zero info about you, how do you prove who you are and get your account back?