10 ms·

Haha - this illustrates WHY the app store is so popular. You've got Match.com (owns tinder). Repeat FTC offender (most scammmers never get the FTC slap on the

Haha - this illustrates WHY the app store is so popular. You've got Match.com (owns tinder). Repeat FTC offender (most scammmers never get the FTC slap on the wrist). "Match Group also allegedly makes it too difficult to cancel a subscription through “confusing and cumbersome cancellation practices.” The FTC claims users must click through two pages of survey questions and cites a 2015 internal presentation that notes the cancellation flow as “hard to find, tedious and confusing.” “Members often think they’ve cancelled when they have not and end up with unwanted renewals,” More recently they were doing the fake match emails to generate signups. I'm not sure if that case has settled yet. You've got Epic. They are pretty famous for targeting kids and getting them to spend their parents money, auto-saving payment info parents may enter to allow a single purchase, microtransactions nightmare and using "v bucks" / bannanas etc to make it less transparent in terms of what things are actually costing. Refund / complaint procedures are horrible. "When Stecklare tried to request a refund from Epic Games, she says, it was like hitting a brick wall. She sent multiple emails over several days but says she received only boilerplate responses.".... Spotify They find no name bands they don't have to pay to do covers of major musical acts or replace the "best of..." albums with these trash albums. They've also been sued repeatedly over their royalty practices. The lawsuit (below) alleges that Spotify has participated in "an egregious, continuous and ongoing campaign of deliberate copyright infringement" around the mechanical license for many of the songs on its platform. Having these folks in charge of app subscriptions and setting standards inside the apple walled garden is going to be a TRAIN WRECK if they win this case. So much trust is going to be lost by users who are used to stuff in the apple world not having these and other scammers playing around in it.

izacus 6y ago
Interesting how there's so many posts here attacking the companies behind the action (ad hominem style) by specifying actions that have nothing to do with the abuses Apple and AppStore do. Is this targeted?
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- ilikehurdles 6y ago
  > Please don't post insinuations about astroturfing, shilling, brigading, foreign agents and the like. It degrades discussion and is usually mistaken. If you're worried about abuse, email hn@ycombinator.com and we'll look at the data. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html I think Epic Games, at least, is an all-around horrific company, and in this case has intentionally exploited the App Store to start a specious lawsuit.
- kemiller 6y ago
  No... many people actually appreciate the walled garden as consumers.
  - eertami 6y ago
    Sure, but it's of course surprising such people would be present on HN.
    - DevKoala 6y ago
      Why? As a developer it sounds like a nightmare, but as a costumer, I like it. It makes for a great experience.
      - stefano 6y ago
        Because it's as far as you can go from being a "Hacker".
        AlexandrB 6y ago
        As a signifier of technological anti-establishment thinking I think that label is pretty meaningless at this point. Most of the "Hackers" of my generation grew up to either vacuum up user data without their consent, micro-target advertising (including political propaganda), or fund those that do the above two things.
        ilikehurdles 6y ago
        People here are consumers too. To give my anecdata: I used to subscribe to the NYT and made the mistake of not subscribing using Apple's subscriptions mechanism. When I wanted to cancel for a while, I had to go through a whole spiel with their sales rep to get them to honor my cancellation. With other subscription services on Apple (like many the TV streaming subscriptions) cancelling is a couple of standard clicks and you're done. No questions asked. I've cancelled and re-subscribed to thing like HBO multiple times because of it, but I will never be resubscribing to the NYT again. I don't want 90 different ways to cancel 90 different subscriptions from 90 different stores for 90 different apps on my phone, so yeah I do appreciate having one place to do it, and I wish it were harder for developers to skirt the App Store infrastructure to push their own consumer-hostile options.
- systemvoltage 6y ago
  Showing how App Store is consumer centric - I think that's important to put in the context where Apple has to keep a tight grip or else these savage businesses would devour the customer's privacy in instant and exploit their psyche with tricks to milk as much money as they can. I am glad Apple is gatekeeping.
  - manigandham 6y ago
    Native apps have always been major privacy leaks with little oversight while Apple has spent most of the effort on Safari. The app store doesn't change that fact.
  - m000 6y ago
    This is like claiming that you're glad when a TSA agent gropes you, because that keeps the savage terrorists out. In both cases, it is a security theatre which is abused for reasons not related to security.
- fhood 6y ago
  Not trying to take a side here, but Epic especially is not the company I want leading the charge here. I am vehemently opposed to their (and Tencent's) primary business model. Edit: It isn't like there aren't policies that Apple has in place that should be pushed back against. But, Epic seems to have zero qualms about targeting children misleading and manipulative in game transactions, and I think that Epic having their way is far more nightmarish than Apple's equivalent, based on my current understanding of the two companies business models.
  - kickopotomus 6y ago
    If you don't like Epic, then aren't they exactly who you want to take part in what will likely be a long and economically painful legal battle? I'm not a fan either but indie developers don't have the resources necessary to take Apple to court and win.
- untog 6y ago
  If you're asking "is it possible for multiple people to be so annoyed by the business practises of tech giants that they complain about it online even when not directly related to the topic at hand"... yeah, yeah it is. No need to look for a conspiracy here.
  - temp667 6y ago
    I spent months dealing with myheritages uncancelable auto-renewal. Others make you cancel 30 days in advance, but not more than 90 days in advance, with a phone call that runs you through dumb menus At some point you have a life, kids, wife, etc and playing these games is not worth it. Apple markets to those of us who even though tech savvey don't want to play the game some of these big scammer / microtransaction folks want to play.
- kevincox 6y ago
  It seems that the post is highlighting how the subscription and refund options of these companies provide a far worse experience than the Apple App Store which is a legitimate concern for why providing a work around can lead to worse user experiences if these companies provide their app via a different chancel that doesn't enforce certain UX requirements. For that reason the comment does seem helpful and relevant.
- temp667 6y ago
  Is it the job of the DOJ to help scammers make money? Or can anti-trust be about some type of consumer protection? Apple has carved out a small but lucrative area which is basically pretty consumer attentive. I think google assistant is way better, but I just like having a hassle free experience with apple too much to switch for what might be a better spec'ed product. I get my phone for 3 years, get applecare+ on it, and away I go. I've actually used AppleCare once, I was in and out in something like 15 minutes with a new phone. I've had apple remind me to cancel app subscriptions when I delete an app if I won't be re-installing! You get a notice before renewals on subscriptions, the terms are always clear and in dollars, consistent interface to cancel and get terms (ie, no FREE 1 month (and then fine print - $50/month after)). The irony is that these are the sleezeballs - the EXACT folks that make doing subscriptions online so annoying and illustrate what apple is trying to create with their platform - TRUST. They make games for Xbox - I'm sure microsoft wants a cut. Playstation I'm sure does the same. This has everything to do with the apple eco-system from the consumer standpoint. I realize the issue here is that folks like tinder can't run whatever scam they want on the apple platform. Why is this a crime again? Don't like it? There are tons of other phones out there, apple doesn't have close to a monopoly in smartphone sales.
- plandis 6y ago
  You don’t think it’s valid to critique the bad actions that the App Store generally protects (non tech savvy) consumers from?
return1 6y ago
That s pure whataboutsm. Nothing stops apple from vetting apps without charging an extortionate 30% tax. They have plenty of money to do that. Or do you imply that apple’s tax deters scammers? Then , how are these companies accepted in the app store?
- ghostwriter 6y ago
  I was told in other threads that taxes, especially if they are progressive, are a good thing and that they help the society and the government to function, and that we pay them because we receive services in exchange, and that it doesn't matter how satisfied we are with those services. If you call Apple charges taxes, be consistent and respect them as any other tax in your life. Or denounce all of them. Or stop calling them taxes.
  - return1 6y ago
    Taxation is theft. That said, i dont see how paying the apple tax for the apps i buy is benefiting me at all, since i'm in Europe.
    - ghostwriter 6y ago
      > That said, i dont see how paying the apple tax for the apps i buy is benefiting me at all, since i'm in Europe. Do you see how VAT benefits you when you pay it when buying almost any product/service (including the ones from Apple) in your country? I agree with your taxation stance though, because taxes are not voluntary. AppStore is, I can either pay for it and use it, or jailbreak it and use it, or walk away to open platforms and enjoy their freedom. And if there isn't one, I am free to organise with others and to build my own. Besides, Apple doesn't want you to pay for it, it wants to get a fee from the developers who use the platform to profit from it. It's either developers who consciously put this burden of their fees on your shoulders, or there's a ridiculous law in place that doesn't allow the developers to put different price tags on different platforms, which results in higher prices for end users.
      - 6y ago
koheripbal 6y ago
You'd be hard pressed to find a company that is popular and doesnt have accusations, haters, and lawsuits for something or other. It's part of running a complex large business.
- ksk 6y ago
  Anything you disagree with here? https://appfairness.org/our-vision/ https://appfairness.org/our-vision/
  - disposekinetics 6y ago
    #6, I love how little Apple allows companies to contact me.
  - plandis 6y ago
    > No developer should be required to use an app store exclusively, or to use ancillary services of the app store owner, including payment systems, or to accept other supplementary obligations in order to have access to the app store. Apple doesn’t have a monopoly here they don’t even have 50% marketshare. Nobody forces developers to develop apps for Apple devices, that’s a choice that was made. Why should Apples rights over its own IP get trumped by others? I find it hard to see as a win for consumers based on the scummy practices of the companies in this advocacy group. Comparatively consumers are much better with Apples requirements from my perspective. So given that there is potential for significant harm AND developers have a choice of platforms to develop for why should Apples rights be taken away? > No developer should be blocked from the platform or discriminated against based on a developer’s business model, how it delivers content and services, or whether it competes in any way with the app store owner. So if I sell an app that does something like only sells to white people Apple shouldn’t be allowed to step in even though the negative press is likely to harm their brand image? > Every developer should have timely access to the same interoperability interfaces and technical information as the app store owner makes available to its own developers. Apple should be forced to work on behalf of other companies with no benefit for them? > Every developer should always have access to app stores as long as its app meets fair, objective and nondiscriminatory standards for security, privacy, quality, content, and digital safety. Is this not true today? If it’s not Apple setting those standards it’s surely some other biased entity right? How is one better than the other? > A developer’s data should not be used to compete with the developer. This seems fair. > Every developer should always have the right to communicate directly with its users through its app for legitimate business purposes. Why does communicate mean in this instance? I can see how the definition of communicate could be exploited to allow apps to override permission defaults set by Apple. For example perhaps you get an add and the app owner things it’s valid to start the microphone so the communication channel can be opened? Perhaps I want to communicate based on location? Should I be allowed to access GPS information without permissions? > No app store owner or its platform should engage in self-preferencing its own apps or services, or interfere with users’ choice of preferences or defaults. Why? It’s their platform. Developers are free to develop their own phone / OS, right? > No developer should be required to pay unfair, unreasonable or discriminatory fees or revenue shares, nor be required to sell within its app anything it doesn’t wish to sell, as a condition to gain access to the app store. Apple would surely say developers do not pay an unfair or unreasonable amount. Who sets this standard? > No app store owner should prohibit third parties from offering competing app stores on the app store owner’s platform, or discourage developers or consumers from using them. Why? If your App Store bricks an iPhone, Apple shouldn’t be able to prevent that from being installed on their devices? > All app stores will be transparent about their rules and policies and opportunities for promotion and marketing, apply these consistently and objectively, provide notice of changes, and make available a quick, simple and fair process to resolve disputes. Transparent is subjective. I don’t see how this won’t result in the same types of TOS that people without legal degrees are not equipped to parse/understand.
jariel 6y ago
This is completely shameful gaslighting. All of Epics and Spotify's supposed 'shenanigans' are 100% endorsed by Apple, so your argument is not even an argument. Did Apple's 'moral App store' stop any of your claimed activity? No? So what's your point? I just can't believe individual citizens would be arbitrary corporate shills for a monopoly. A lot more vendors need to get together to lobby against anti-competitive practices.
ksk 6y ago
What do you disagree with on this page? https://appfairness.org/our-vision/ https://appfairness.org/our-vision/
crazygringo 6y ago
> this illustrates WHY the app store is so popular No it doesn't. The app store is "popular" because Apple users don't have a choice. It's "popular" because they're forced to use it. I'm neither defending it or criticizing it... but let's not pretend like consumers are choosing the app store. Users in general are choosing Apple vs Android primarily for reasons that have nothing to do with an app store (i.e. hardware, support, iMessage, branding, etc.) and then simply use whatever app store they're forced to.
- 8ytecoder 6y ago
  Speak for yourself. I try to pay everything I can via the App Store subscriptions precisely because it’s easier to cancel. I made the mistake of subscribing to nytimes and I have to call them to cancel. That’s a major brand making me do this.
  - hamilyon2 6y ago
    What a sad, truly medieval serf position are you living in. Paying one lord so that he protects you from other lords that have full power to rob you. That is wrong, I can't state how wrong is that. No commercial entity dares to charge my bank account in my country without my explicit approval. Actually, I believe they cannot.
- Razengan 6y ago
  > Apple users don't have a choice. It's "popular" because they're forced to use it. Do you have a minute to talk about our Lord and Savior, Android? People do choose iPhones or Androids based on what apps they know they can run.
  - notsureaboutpg 6y ago
    Very few people do this. most popular apps have a version on both stores.
    - Razengan 6y ago
mhh__ 6y ago
This illustrates why the app store is popular, despite all of these companies rolling in money? TRAIN WRECK, really?
Apocryphon 6y ago
Okay, so what’s wrong with Basecamp, Tile, or Protonmail? What’s nefarious about Prepear?
manigandham 6y ago
The standards are already a train wreck, that's the entire issue, along with consumers not having any other choice in how they install apps so popularity can't be measured in the first place. Also Apple has plenty of supply chain problems and anti-consumer practices that equal and exceed those other issues you named.
bluecalm 6y ago
I am sorry but this is nonsense. App store is "popular" because it's the only option. We can try to imagine if it would still be popular with cheaper competition but right now there is one reason for its popularity: there is nothing else. If trust is indeed lost than people will just use Apple app store knowing full well other ones are unsafe/offer worse experience.
echelon 6y ago
Your perspective makes me sad. I'm honestly depressed because people rush to defend bad behavior of their favorite monopoly. Like, physically holding back tears. Serious. What is wrong with us? Our computers and technology have been locked down by anti-competitive juggernauts. Our legislators have written laws that cede more of our liberties and privacy. This modern internet sucks so much and I want to go back to when it was free. I want a world where we're free to install whatever we want on our devices or distribute our hard work to others without having to implement it 5 different ways. I don't want to be taxed by entities worth trillions. Before they stood up the walls, I could reach all the people I wanted for free. Now they've turned us into poor serfs. The last bastion, the web, is even under attack by the forces of embrace, extend, extinguish. Mozilla is dying, meanwhile Google is removing support for adblock, removing the URL, promoting web bundles with baked in DRM, ads, and tracking. These rent-seeking companies took all of the goodwill and amazing technology we developed in the open and they corrupted it. They saw the amazing capabilities we built, and realized exactly how they could adopt it, take control of it, and steer the public into their arms instead. 2020 doesn't suck. Everything since 2010 sucks. And it's getting worse.
- ilikehurdles 6y ago
  > I want a world where we're free to install whatever we want on our devices or distribute our hard work to others without having to implement it 5 different ways. I do too, but your appeal to emotion is off-topic. This has nothing to do with the lawsuit. None of these companies want that, nor are they working toward that. Epic and Spotify are pushing their own walled gardens, they just want to do it with a bigger profit margin.
  - Apocryphon 6y ago
    Basecamp and Tile want walled gardens?
    - ilikehurdles 6y ago
      Epic and Spotify.
user5994461 6y ago
For reference, all of these practices are abusive and will void the subscription contract in civil law (Europe). Ask for a refund and perform a charge back if they don't refund. I wrote a detailed article about it, what every developer should know about software subscriptions and civil law: https://thehftguy.com/2020/09/08/what-every-developer-should-know-about-civil-law-and-software-subscriptions/ https://thehftguy.com/2020/09/08/what-every-developer-should...
- joshstrange 6y ago
  > For reference, all of these practices are abusive and will void the subscription contract in civil law (Europe). Ask for a refund and perform a charge back if they don't refund. Do you think that really matters to or is realistic for the average non-technical user? Heck even as technical user I don't want to deal with that crap, I want 1 click unsubscribe which I get through App Store subscriptions.
  - user5994461 6y ago
    I think it matters that the law is on the side of the consumer, least the big company would sue the customer for charge back and try to take over their home as damages.
- temp667 6y ago
  Good lord, when you say someone has to go through a civil law litigation (in the US this is a nightmare) to just do a basic unsubscribe - you AGAIN demonstrate why the app store is popular. Epic doesn't allow a civil law process, they force arbitration anyways. So the deck is stacked against you
  - user5994461 6y ago
    I'm speaking toward Europeans of course, the US does not operate under civil law. Epic doesn't get to set the law, the country where the consumer resides does. France for example operates under civil law and arbitration clauses are void (in consumer contracts not in B2B). Users should ask for refund and charge back if they can't get a refund, preferably keeping a paper trail of the requests. The legal details are only relevant if one goes to litigation (this sadly happens regularly for example with children bankrupting their parents with in-game purchases).
jayd16 6y ago
If the app store is so great just open up the platform. People will choose to use Apple's great store.
devwastaken 6y ago
Monopalies become large enough that their existence threatens capitalism itself by controlling the free market through Ill means. Markets are comprised of people, business, and money. when a market is large enough People have a right to conduct their business unduly infringed by it's creator or controller. Anything else is a fascist market that is entirely against capitalism, and therefore should not exist in a free world. You may like your padded walls and taking authority, but the market does not belong to you. It belongs to the opportunity of business.

izacus 6y ago

Interesting how there's so many posts here attacking the companies behind the action (ad hominem style) by specifying actions that have nothing to do with the abuses Apple and AppStore do. Is this targeted?

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
ilikehurdles 6y ago
> Please don't post insinuations about astroturfing, shilling, brigading, foreign agents and the like. It degrades discussion and is usually mistaken. If you're worried about abuse, email hn@ycombinator.com and we'll look at the data. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html I think Epic Games, at least, is an all-around horrific company, and in this case has intentionally exploited the App Store to start a specious lawsuit.
kemiller 6y ago
No... many people actually appreciate the walled garden as consumers.
- eertami 6y ago
  Sure, but it's of course surprising such people would be present on HN.
  - DevKoala 6y ago
    Why? As a developer it sounds like a nightmare, but as a costumer, I like it. It makes for a great experience.
    - stefano 6y ago
      Because it's as far as you can go from being a "Hacker".
      - AlexandrB 6y ago
        As a signifier of technological anti-establishment thinking I think that label is pretty meaningless at this point. Most of the "Hackers" of my generation grew up to either vacuum up user data without their consent, micro-target advertising (including political propaganda), or fund those that do the above two things.
      - ilikehurdles 6y ago
        People here are consumers too. To give my anecdata: I used to subscribe to the NYT and made the mistake of not subscribing using Apple's subscriptions mechanism. When I wanted to cancel for a while, I had to go through a whole spiel with their sales rep to get them to honor my cancellation. With other subscription services on Apple (like many the TV streaming subscriptions) cancelling is a couple of standard clicks and you're done. No questions asked. I've cancelled and re-subscribed to thing like HBO multiple times because of it, but I will never be resubscribing to the NYT again. I don't want 90 different ways to cancel 90 different subscriptions from 90 different stores for 90 different apps on my phone, so yeah I do appreciate having one place to do it, and I wish it were harder for developers to skirt the App Store infrastructure to push their own consumer-hostile options.
systemvoltage 6y ago
Showing how App Store is consumer centric - I think that's important to put in the context where Apple has to keep a tight grip or else these savage businesses would devour the customer's privacy in instant and exploit their psyche with tricks to milk as much money as they can. I am glad Apple is gatekeeping.
- manigandham 6y ago
  Native apps have always been major privacy leaks with little oversight while Apple has spent most of the effort on Safari. The app store doesn't change that fact.
- m000 6y ago
  This is like claiming that you're glad when a TSA agent gropes you, because that keeps the savage terrorists out. In both cases, it is a security theatre which is abused for reasons not related to security.
fhood 6y ago
Not trying to take a side here, but Epic especially is not the company I want leading the charge here. I am vehemently opposed to their (and Tencent's) primary business model. Edit: It isn't like there aren't policies that Apple has in place that should be pushed back against. But, Epic seems to have zero qualms about targeting children misleading and manipulative in game transactions, and I think that Epic having their way is far more nightmarish than Apple's equivalent, based on my current understanding of the two companies business models.
- kickopotomus 6y ago
  If you don't like Epic, then aren't they exactly who you want to take part in what will likely be a long and economically painful legal battle? I'm not a fan either but indie developers don't have the resources necessary to take Apple to court and win.
untog 6y ago
If you're asking "is it possible for multiple people to be so annoyed by the business practises of tech giants that they complain about it online even when not directly related to the topic at hand"... yeah, yeah it is. No need to look for a conspiracy here.
- temp667 6y ago
  I spent months dealing with myheritages uncancelable auto-renewal. Others make you cancel 30 days in advance, but not more than 90 days in advance, with a phone call that runs you through dumb menus At some point you have a life, kids, wife, etc and playing these games is not worth it. Apple markets to those of us who even though tech savvey don't want to play the game some of these big scammer / microtransaction folks want to play.
kevincox 6y ago
It seems that the post is highlighting how the subscription and refund options of these companies provide a far worse experience than the Apple App Store which is a legitimate concern for why providing a work around can lead to worse user experiences if these companies provide their app via a different chancel that doesn't enforce certain UX requirements. For that reason the comment does seem helpful and relevant.
temp667 6y ago
Is it the job of the DOJ to help scammers make money? Or can anti-trust be about some type of consumer protection? Apple has carved out a small but lucrative area which is basically pretty consumer attentive. I think google assistant is way better, but I just like having a hassle free experience with apple too much to switch for what might be a better spec'ed product. I get my phone for 3 years, get applecare+ on it, and away I go. I've actually used AppleCare once, I was in and out in something like 15 minutes with a new phone. I've had apple remind me to cancel app subscriptions when I delete an app if I won't be re-installing! You get a notice before renewals on subscriptions, the terms are always clear and in dollars, consistent interface to cancel and get terms (ie, no FREE 1 month (and then fine print - $50/month after)). The irony is that these are the sleezeballs - the EXACT folks that make doing subscriptions online so annoying and illustrate what apple is trying to create with their platform - TRUST. They make games for Xbox - I'm sure microsoft wants a cut. Playstation I'm sure does the same. This has everything to do with the apple eco-system from the consumer standpoint. I realize the issue here is that folks like tinder can't run whatever scam they want on the apple platform. Why is this a crime again? Don't like it? There are tons of other phones out there, apple doesn't have close to a monopoly in smartphone sales.
plandis 6y ago
You don’t think it’s valid to critique the bad actions that the App Store generally protects (non tech savvy) consumers from?

return1 6y ago

That s pure whataboutsm. Nothing stops apple from vetting apps without charging an extortionate 30% tax. They have plenty of money to do that. Or do you imply that apple’s tax deters scammers? Then , how are these companies accepted in the app store?

ghostwriter 6y ago
I was told in other threads that taxes, especially if they are progressive, are a good thing and that they help the society and the government to function, and that we pay them because we receive services in exchange, and that it doesn't matter how satisfied we are with those services. If you call Apple charges taxes, be consistent and respect them as any other tax in your life. Or denounce all of them. Or stop calling them taxes.
- return1 6y ago
  Taxation is theft. That said, i dont see how paying the apple tax for the apps i buy is benefiting me at all, since i'm in Europe.
  - ghostwriter 6y ago
    > That said, i dont see how paying the apple tax for the apps i buy is benefiting me at all, since i'm in Europe. Do you see how VAT benefits you when you pay it when buying almost any product/service (including the ones from Apple) in your country? I agree with your taxation stance though, because taxes are not voluntary. AppStore is, I can either pay for it and use it, or jailbreak it and use it, or walk away to open platforms and enjoy their freedom. And if there isn't one, I am free to organise with others and to build my own. Besides, Apple doesn't want you to pay for it, it wants to get a fee from the developers who use the platform to profit from it. It's either developers who consciously put this burden of their fees on your shoulders, or there's a ridiculous law in place that doesn't allow the developers to put different price tags on different platforms, which results in higher prices for end users.
    - 6y ago

koheripbal 6y ago

You'd be hard pressed to find a company that is popular and doesnt have accusations, haters, and lawsuits for something or other. It's part of running a complex large business.

ksk 6y ago
Anything you disagree with here? https://appfairness.org/our-vision/ https://appfairness.org/our-vision/
- disposekinetics 6y ago
  #6, I love how little Apple allows companies to contact me.
- plandis 6y ago
  > No developer should be required to use an app store exclusively, or to use ancillary services of the app store owner, including payment systems, or to accept other supplementary obligations in order to have access to the app store. Apple doesn’t have a monopoly here they don’t even have 50% marketshare. Nobody forces developers to develop apps for Apple devices, that’s a choice that was made. Why should Apples rights over its own IP get trumped by others? I find it hard to see as a win for consumers based on the scummy practices of the companies in this advocacy group. Comparatively consumers are much better with Apples requirements from my perspective. So given that there is potential for significant harm AND developers have a choice of platforms to develop for why should Apples rights be taken away? > No developer should be blocked from the platform or discriminated against based on a developer’s business model, how it delivers content and services, or whether it competes in any way with the app store owner. So if I sell an app that does something like only sells to white people Apple shouldn’t be allowed to step in even though the negative press is likely to harm their brand image? > Every developer should have timely access to the same interoperability interfaces and technical information as the app store owner makes available to its own developers. Apple should be forced to work on behalf of other companies with no benefit for them? > Every developer should always have access to app stores as long as its app meets fair, objective and nondiscriminatory standards for security, privacy, quality, content, and digital safety. Is this not true today? If it’s not Apple setting those standards it’s surely some other biased entity right? How is one better than the other? > A developer’s data should not be used to compete with the developer. This seems fair. > Every developer should always have the right to communicate directly with its users through its app for legitimate business purposes. Why does communicate mean in this instance? I can see how the definition of communicate could be exploited to allow apps to override permission defaults set by Apple. For example perhaps you get an add and the app owner things it’s valid to start the microphone so the communication channel can be opened? Perhaps I want to communicate based on location? Should I be allowed to access GPS information without permissions? > No app store owner or its platform should engage in self-preferencing its own apps or services, or interfere with users’ choice of preferences or defaults. Why? It’s their platform. Developers are free to develop their own phone / OS, right? > No developer should be required to pay unfair, unreasonable or discriminatory fees or revenue shares, nor be required to sell within its app anything it doesn’t wish to sell, as a condition to gain access to the app store. Apple would surely say developers do not pay an unfair or unreasonable amount. Who sets this standard? > No app store owner should prohibit third parties from offering competing app stores on the app store owner’s platform, or discourage developers or consumers from using them. Why? If your App Store bricks an iPhone, Apple shouldn’t be able to prevent that from being installed on their devices? > All app stores will be transparent about their rules and policies and opportunities for promotion and marketing, apply these consistently and objectively, provide notice of changes, and make available a quick, simple and fair process to resolve disputes. Transparent is subjective. I don’t see how this won’t result in the same types of TOS that people without legal degrees are not equipped to parse/understand.

jariel 6y ago

This is completely shameful gaslighting. All of Epics and Spotify's supposed 'shenanigans' are 100% endorsed by Apple, so your argument is not even an argument. Did Apple's 'moral App store' stop any of your claimed activity? No? So what's your point? I just can't believe individual citizens would be arbitrary corporate shills for a monopoly. A lot more vendors need to get together to lobby against anti-competitive practices.

ksk 6y ago

What do you disagree with on this page? https://appfairness.org/our-vision/ https://appfairness.org/our-vision/

crazygringo 6y ago

> this illustrates WHY the app store is so popular No it doesn't. The app store is "popular" because Apple users don't have a choice. It's "popular" because they're forced to use it. I'm neither defending it or criticizing it... but let's not pretend like consumers are choosing the app store. Users in general are choosing Apple vs Android primarily for reasons that have nothing to do with an app store (i.e. hardware, support, iMessage, branding, etc.) and then simply use whatever app store they're forced to.

8ytecoder 6y ago
Speak for yourself. I try to pay everything I can via the App Store subscriptions precisely because it’s easier to cancel. I made the mistake of subscribing to nytimes and I have to call them to cancel. That’s a major brand making me do this.
- hamilyon2 6y ago
  What a sad, truly medieval serf position are you living in. Paying one lord so that he protects you from other lords that have full power to rob you. That is wrong, I can't state how wrong is that. No commercial entity dares to charge my bank account in my country without my explicit approval. Actually, I believe they cannot.
Razengan 6y ago
> Apple users don't have a choice. It's "popular" because they're forced to use it. Do you have a minute to talk about our Lord and Savior, Android? People do choose iPhones or Androids based on what apps they know they can run.
- notsureaboutpg 6y ago
  Very few people do this. most popular apps have a version on both stores.
  - Razengan 6y ago

mhh__ 6y ago

This illustrates why the app store is popular, despite all of these companies rolling in money? TRAIN WRECK, really?

Apocryphon 6y ago

Okay, so what’s wrong with Basecamp, Tile, or Protonmail? What’s nefarious about Prepear?

manigandham 6y ago

The standards are already a train wreck, that's the entire issue, along with consumers not having any other choice in how they install apps so popularity can't be measured in the first place. Also Apple has plenty of supply chain problems and anti-consumer practices that equal and exceed those other issues you named.

bluecalm 6y ago

I am sorry but this is nonsense. App store is "popular" because it's the only option. We can try to imagine if it would still be popular with cheaper competition but right now there is one reason for its popularity: there is nothing else. If trust is indeed lost than people will just use Apple app store knowing full well other ones are unsafe/offer worse experience.

echelon 6y ago

Your perspective makes me sad. I'm honestly depressed because people rush to defend bad behavior of their favorite monopoly. Like, physically holding back tears. Serious. What is wrong with us? Our computers and technology have been locked down by anti-competitive juggernauts. Our legislators have written laws that cede more of our liberties and privacy. This modern internet sucks so much and I want to go back to when it was free. I want a world where we're free to install whatever we want on our devices or distribute our hard work to others without having to implement it 5 different ways. I don't want to be taxed by entities worth trillions. Before they stood up the walls, I could reach all the people I wanted for free. Now they've turned us into poor serfs. The last bastion, the web, is even under attack by the forces of embrace, extend, extinguish. Mozilla is dying, meanwhile Google is removing support for adblock, removing the URL, promoting web bundles with baked in DRM, ads, and tracking. These rent-seeking companies took all of the goodwill and amazing technology we developed in the open and they corrupted it. They saw the amazing capabilities we built, and realized exactly how they could adopt it, take control of it, and steer the public into their arms instead. 2020 doesn't suck. Everything since 2010 sucks. And it's getting worse.

ilikehurdles 6y ago
> I want a world where we're free to install whatever we want on our devices or distribute our hard work to others without having to implement it 5 different ways. I do too, but your appeal to emotion is off-topic. This has nothing to do with the lawsuit. None of these companies want that, nor are they working toward that. Epic and Spotify are pushing their own walled gardens, they just want to do it with a bigger profit margin.
- Apocryphon 6y ago
  Basecamp and Tile want walled gardens?
  - ilikehurdles 6y ago
    Epic and Spotify.

user5994461 6y ago

For reference, all of these practices are abusive and will void the subscription contract in civil law (Europe). Ask for a refund and perform a charge back if they don't refund. I wrote a detailed article about it, what every developer should know about software subscriptions and civil law: https://thehftguy.com/2020/09/08/what-every-developer-should-know-about-civil-law-and-software-subscriptions/ https://thehftguy.com/2020/09/08/what-every-developer-should...

joshstrange 6y ago
> For reference, all of these practices are abusive and will void the subscription contract in civil law (Europe). Ask for a refund and perform a charge back if they don't refund. Do you think that really matters to or is realistic for the average non-technical user? Heck even as technical user I don't want to deal with that crap, I want 1 click unsubscribe which I get through App Store subscriptions.
- user5994461 6y ago
  I think it matters that the law is on the side of the consumer, least the big company would sue the customer for charge back and try to take over their home as damages.
temp667 6y ago
Good lord, when you say someone has to go through a civil law litigation (in the US this is a nightmare) to just do a basic unsubscribe - you AGAIN demonstrate why the app store is popular. Epic doesn't allow a civil law process, they force arbitration anyways. So the deck is stacked against you
- user5994461 6y ago
  I'm speaking toward Europeans of course, the US does not operate under civil law. Epic doesn't get to set the law, the country where the consumer resides does. France for example operates under civil law and arbitration clauses are void (in consumer contracts not in B2B). Users should ask for refund and charge back if they can't get a refund, preferably keeping a paper trail of the requests. The legal details are only relevant if one goes to litigation (this sadly happens regularly for example with children bankrupting their parents with in-game purchases).

jayd16 6y ago

If the app store is so great just open up the platform. People will choose to use Apple's great store.

devwastaken 6y ago

Monopalies become large enough that their existence threatens capitalism itself by controlling the free market through Ill means. Markets are comprised of people, business, and money. when a market is large enough People have a right to conduct their business unduly infringed by it's creator or controller. Anything else is a fascist market that is entirely against capitalism, and therefore should not exist in a free world. You may like your padded walls and taking authority, but the market does not belong to you. It belongs to the opportunity of business.