6 ms·

The question from a principle standpoint is - can a company create an area where trust / safety / security are prioritized. T Developers no doubt disagree with

The question from a principle standpoint is - can a company create an area where trust / safety / security are prioritized. T Developers no doubt disagree with this, they have created a web that is filled with crap. Let's be 100% clear about that. Spam calls via voip, spam into email, ddos floods of every sort imaginable, impossible to unsubscribe, cramming and slamming on subscription renewals and the list goes on. They don't want root on your device to help you, but to screw you in enough cases that you shouldn't give them root. Trust / security / safety are low low low on the list of almost all startup and other developers "growth hacking" etc. Apple wanted to create their own little world. Phones with updates that keep on getting updated, an app marketplace with much more transparent pricing (lot less fine print), and the list goes on. You need to look at what apple is doing in context. The world on the net developers and hackers here on HN have created is terrible in many ways for many many people. At some point folks are just tied of the endless scams. Now the same folks who trashed a lot of the rest of the web (do you answer your phone when an unkown number calls?) want into the walled apple garden.

spideymans 6y ago
>Trust / security / safety are low low low on the list of almost all startup and other developers "growth hacking" etc. Yeah I find this general argument that developers should be "trusted" with the "freedom" of an "open" ecosystem, with all those happy buzzwords, so off-putting. I mean, sure, I might perhaps trust the small indie developer working out of his basement to not screw me over, but by and large the software that end users are interacting with are coming out of faceless billion dollar behemoths looking to squeeze every dollar out of their users (and associated data) as possible. I have zero reason to trust them, particularly given the conduct of the Internet giants (ahem... Facebook). Perhaps if these businesses had a more user-friendly business model, end users would've been comfortable using a less restrictive mobile software platforms, similar to what we used to have on desktop computers. Facebook et all have reaped what they sowed, and they get zero sympathy from me regarding their App Store situation. They're the reason that users (even on HN) generally celebrate when Apple imposes an ever growing list of privacy restrictions on their activities.
gpm 6y ago
To keep the continuity of discussion, I assume that this comment was posted here because my top level comment was in part a reply to your (temp667's) comment here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24579860 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24579860 I appreciate the attempt to connect this to the anti-trust suit, but I don't see this as a good justification for why your original critique is relevant for a few reasons: - Many of the practices in your original critique are allowed on (or not prevented by) Apple's app store. The argument you are making here only makes sense as pertaining to anti-trust to the extent that you are critiquing practices that Apple is preventing. - It doesn't particularly matter whether the people trying to overturn Apple's practice are the bad actors, or third parties are, since the lawsuit affects all parties (third party or not) equally. So while you could make a consumer benefit argument based on bad actors (indeed, Apple has tried to in the lawsuit), it makes little to no sense to focus on the parties suing (and simultaneously falls into the trap of just arguing that people you don't like don't deserve justice). On a separate note - I also find the argument for Apple's bundling of services here unconvincing. I have seen no argument for why Apple's curation service needs to be bundled with the phone - which is the prerequisite of the anti trust suit. Consider that apple could perfectly well sell the hardware and OS, and separately sell (or even offer for free) a software package that locks out third party app stores and third party payment providers. Doing so would practically destroy any argument that they are using their monopoly on IPhone hardware and IOs to acquire a monopoly on app distribution and payment services. To the extent that people find the lock in useful, I expect they would install that software package.
- freedomben 6y ago
  > To the extent that people find the lock in useful, I expect they would install that software package. Deep down I would guess that most people will still object on consequentialist grounds, because they know that not enough people will opt in unless forced, and so vendors will be able to ignore the walled garden. Apple sure as hell wouldn't be able to take 30% if there were other ways onto the iPhone, as big vendors would avoid it, thus requiring most users to give up the safe walled garden. I still come out strongly against Apple on this one however as I am not a consequentialist.
- temp667 6y ago
greycol 6y ago
Sure Apple can create their area of trust/safety/security in their apple store allowing those who want that to stay there. They can't however do that on a device they've sold to customers. The question from a principle standpoint is - can companies stop a customer from modifying a device they own when it only effects the customer. Or more realistically there is more than one question and you have to make trade offs between the right answer to all of them (and what people believe the right answer to be). My view is: Make it hard to install out of App store, warn people about all the security/trust/safety there losing each time they enable a fine grained permissions. It's a simple security rule; don't install anything not in the app store, yes pay the 30% premium for that security. Yes it's not perfect but the current situation definitely isn't either.
cma 6y ago
> Apple wanted to create their own little world. Phones with updates that keep on getting updated, an app marketplace with much more transparent pricing (lot less fine print), and the list goes on. Other than anti-trust and similar laws, there is nothing stopping Apple from eventually creeping it onto the web. It's "their" device after all.
jariel 6y ago
Apple can have their garden, nobody is complaining. The issue is one of choice and consumers ability to go beyond the walled garden. The issue of 'scams' is a canard: there are browsers on iPhones that allow users to be involved in any number of hustles. "Now the same folks who trashed a lot of the rest of the web (do you answer your phone when an unkown number calls?) want into the walled apple garden." This just doesn't make any sense, moreover, it has nothing to do with 30% margins.

spideymans 6y ago

>Trust / security / safety are low low low on the list of almost all startup and other developers "growth hacking" etc. Yeah I find this general argument that developers should be "trusted" with the "freedom" of an "open" ecosystem, with all those happy buzzwords, so off-putting. I mean, sure, I might perhaps trust the small indie developer working out of his basement to not screw me over, but by and large the software that end users are interacting with are coming out of faceless billion dollar behemoths looking to squeeze every dollar out of their users (and associated data) as possible. I have zero reason to trust them, particularly given the conduct of the Internet giants (ahem... Facebook). Perhaps if these businesses had a more user-friendly business model, end users would've been comfortable using a less restrictive mobile software platforms, similar to what we used to have on desktop computers. Facebook et all have reaped what they sowed, and they get zero sympathy from me regarding their App Store situation. They're the reason that users (even on HN) generally celebrate when Apple imposes an ever growing list of privacy restrictions on their activities.

gpm 6y ago

To keep the continuity of discussion, I assume that this comment was posted here because my top level comment was in part a reply to your (temp667's) comment here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24579860 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24579860 I appreciate the attempt to connect this to the anti-trust suit, but I don't see this as a good justification for why your original critique is relevant for a few reasons: - Many of the practices in your original critique are allowed on (or not prevented by) Apple's app store. The argument you are making here only makes sense as pertaining to anti-trust to the extent that you are critiquing practices that Apple is preventing. - It doesn't particularly matter whether the people trying to overturn Apple's practice are the bad actors, or third parties are, since the lawsuit affects all parties (third party or not) equally. So while you could make a consumer benefit argument based on bad actors (indeed, Apple has tried to in the lawsuit), it makes little to no sense to focus on the parties suing (and simultaneously falls into the trap of just arguing that people you don't like don't deserve justice). On a separate note - I also find the argument for Apple's bundling of services here unconvincing. I have seen no argument for why Apple's curation service needs to be bundled with the phone - which is the prerequisite of the anti trust suit. Consider that apple could perfectly well sell the hardware and OS, and separately sell (or even offer for free) a software package that locks out third party app stores and third party payment providers. Doing so would practically destroy any argument that they are using their monopoly on IPhone hardware and IOs to acquire a monopoly on app distribution and payment services. To the extent that people find the lock in useful, I expect they would install that software package.

freedomben 6y ago
> To the extent that people find the lock in useful, I expect they would install that software package. Deep down I would guess that most people will still object on consequentialist grounds, because they know that not enough people will opt in unless forced, and so vendors will be able to ignore the walled garden. Apple sure as hell wouldn't be able to take 30% if there were other ways onto the iPhone, as big vendors would avoid it, thus requiring most users to give up the safe walled garden. I still come out strongly against Apple on this one however as I am not a consequentialist.
temp667 6y ago

greycol 6y ago

Sure Apple can create their area of trust/safety/security in their apple store allowing those who want that to stay there. They can't however do that on a device they've sold to customers. The question from a principle standpoint is - can companies stop a customer from modifying a device they own when it only effects the customer. Or more realistically there is more than one question and you have to make trade offs between the right answer to all of them (and what people believe the right answer to be). My view is: Make it hard to install out of App store, warn people about all the security/trust/safety there losing each time they enable a fine grained permissions. It's a simple security rule; don't install anything not in the app store, yes pay the 30% premium for that security. Yes it's not perfect but the current situation definitely isn't either.

cma 6y ago

> Apple wanted to create their own little world. Phones with updates that keep on getting updated, an app marketplace with much more transparent pricing (lot less fine print), and the list goes on. Other than anti-trust and similar laws, there is nothing stopping Apple from eventually creeping it onto the web. It's "their" device after all.

jariel 6y ago

Apple can have their garden, nobody is complaining. The issue is one of choice and consumers ability to go beyond the walled garden. The issue of 'scams' is a canard: there are browsers on iPhones that allow users to be involved in any number of hustles. "Now the same folks who trashed a lot of the rest of the web (do you answer your phone when an unkown number calls?) want into the walled apple garden." This just doesn't make any sense, moreover, it has nothing to do with 30% margins.