5 ms·

I think people don't understand the perspective here because it's being normalized by all the big players. To make it simpler to understand, apply this system

by m00x 6y ago

I think people don't understand the perspective here because it's being normalized by all the big players. To make it simpler to understand, apply this system to your computer. What if you couldn't install what you wanted and everything would have to go through a protected store? If the platform dislikes your app, they could just remove it from the store and no one could get it. It adds a huge gate in front of the hardware that YOU paid for. You're essentially getting milked from both sides which is terrific for Apple, awful for the consumer.

nickff 6y ago
The problem is not that your premise is too complicated for others to understand, it's that the 'walled garden' is a trade-off which people disagree about. Walled gardens are safer, and usually have some implicit or explicit quality guarantee (like the Nintendo seal of quality). Open platforms allow for more flexibility and innovation by new entrants. On top of this disagreement, we have the meta-issue of whether business model innovation should be allowed; the USA generally permits new business models, whereas European governments are more restrictive.
- rbecker 6y ago
  > Walled gardens are safer, and usually have some implicit or explicit quality guarantee (like the Nintendo seal of quality). And consumers who want to limit themselves to the safety of Apple's app store are free to do so. But Apple goes a step beyond this, and prevents consumers who don't want to be locked-in this way, from using "unauthorized" stores or apps. It's false to claim that the only way to offer safety is to take away user freedom.
  - nickff 6y ago
    >"It's false to claim that the only way to offer safety is to take away user freedom." Well, I didn't claim it was the only way, but it does seem like the simplest and possibly the safest way.
    - chii 6y ago
      and also conveniently benefits apple financially and monopolistically.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - Retric 6y ago
    Freedom and computer security are in fundamental opposition. It’s the same basic question as GC vs manual memory management. The only way to offer safety on a platform is to secure that platform. If Apple disables the API’s which lets apps access users contacts then they can be sure 3rd party iOS stores don’t compromise user’s privacy. If they allow API access and don’t vet stores then guess what that directly means breaches will occur. PS: If you disagree try and come up with some supporting argument.
    - cgriswald 6y ago
      > PS: If you disagree try and come up with some supporting argument. I downvoted you rather than giving you an argument. Here's why: You've edited your post at least four times. Three of those times was when I was trying to offer a counter-argument. The problem was, you kept changing yours. I'm honestly not sure what you believe, both because you changed it so many times, but also because you haven't defined your terms (e.g. whose freedom?). Finally, you make some bold claims, but you don't really support those claims with anything I find credible. In any case, the 'security' argument (and the associated 'reputation' argument you made in one your iterations) rings particularly hollow with me since Apple itself has already had—for decades—great success with a platform that is reasonably secure and relatively free compared to iOS: the Mac.
      - Retric 6y ago
        Objectively Mac OS has had more serious security issues than iOS, so at most you can say the trade off is worth it to you not that doesn’t exist. As to freedom, that was specifically used by the post I was responding to. But, if you’re unsure, consider it in terms of raw assembler vs python. Raw assembler allows more freedom, but that freedom comes at a clear cost. PS: And yes I edited to specific wording a few times for clarity. That’s a holdover from the days when hacker news would eat comments that where being edited for to long. Reputation is a major concern for Apple as a business, but outside of the scope of this discussion.
    - rbecker 6y ago
      > Freedom and computer security are in fundamental opposition. Only if you interpret "freedom" as "freedom for apps" instead of "freedom for the user". None of what you said precludes the user (I won't say "owner") being able to override Apple, or take Apple's place in deciding what their device may do. In your mind, is a platform only "secure" when ultimate control is with the manufacturer, and not the user? How much more "secure" were Apple's users in Hong Kong, after Apple decided to disable the app they were using to track the police?
cygx 6y ago
To play devil's advocate: PC aside, isn't this business as usual for gaming platforms?
- cdash 6y ago
  Gaming platforms are single use platforms. Mobile phones much like a PC are general purpose devices that peoples entire lives revolve around.
  - pjmlp 6y ago
    Just like portable game consoles, with their app stores and internet connection.
  - cgriswald 6y ago
    That's not a particularly compelling argument to me. I'd rather see direct comparisons made. Do gaming platforms require a 30% cut of all sales on the platform, including subscriptions? Do they forbid applications from discussing other subscription options? Etc. I'd say the GP isn't really playing devil's advocate, because he hasn't shown the comparison is apt nor that if it is apt, the gaming platforms aren't also a problem for consumers.
    - cygx 6y ago
      The 30% 'platform tax' originated with Nintendo. It included the cost of cartridge manufacturing, but nowadays, 'everyone' (Apple, Google, Nintendo, Sony, Valve, Microsoft) takes it. [1] I have no idea how their pricing models differ regarding in app purchases, subscription, etc, and feel disinclined to investigate for a one-off comment... [1] https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-08-19/epic-games-fortnite-battle-with-apple-and-google-can-be-traced-to-nintendo-tax https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-08-19/epic-game...
    - csharptwdec19 6y ago
      Well in some cases there are tax implications. No clue whether it's the case here, but by example in the EU, a 'Computer' has different import duties/etc compared to a 'Game Console' (there was some speculation that the PS3's 'Other OS' mode was an attempt to get that better classification.) So my question would be whether there are tax implications.
danbolt 6y ago
I mentioned this in another comment, but I don’t really think of my interactions with my smartphone as the same as my computer. I might do some similar things with both, but I think I treat a phone much more like an appliance these days. Because of that, I find I still purchase iPhones, but never Apple computers anymore.
simonh 6y ago
> What if you couldn't install what you wanted and everything would have to go through a protected store? You mean like on my Nintendo Switch, which I knew worked like that when I bought it and was part of my calculation when buying it?
tjoff 6y ago
Unless people stop buying apple products that is coming to a future near you. I will never get why people will so happily pay to get locked into an ecosystem they are guaranteed to be extorted by.
Barrin92 6y ago
Related point maybe worth bringing up, imagine if Windows had complete control over the distribution of videogames when the industry was in its infancy? Would we ever have gotten some of the more controversial games at the time that have become genre defining like Doom or Wolfenstein? And would we be better off if all game studios would have to pay 30% to Microsoft? It's ridiculous. We grew up with the (relative, before someone starts a gnu/linux rant) freedom to install on our PCs what we wanted, why do kids today not deserve the same thing?
- ethbr0 6y ago
  One huge subterranean component of this that we don't talk about -- we have overengineered platforms. In the pre-90s, you bashed things out of the same primatives everyone else had access to. Now, even getting a simple app up and running on Android or iOS requires abstraction-on-abstraction-on-boilerplate. And you still don't know what the lower layers are doing. And making it runnable requires a developer account, etc. Are we surprised these days that kids (and everyone else) don't see "writing an app" as something they can just try? And that the end consequence of that is that they don't value the ability to do so? We've engineered our platforms to look like the companies that produced them: highly optimized, but simultaneously bloated and overly complex.
  - dwild 6y ago
    > Now, even getting a simple app up and running on Android or iOS requires abstraction-on-abstraction-on-boilerplate. And you still don't know what the lower layers are doing. And there's plenty of people ready to write theses abstraction in the open source world. > Are we surprised these days that kids (and everyone else) don't see "writing an app" as something they can just try? It's just as easy and I see just as many kids trying than before. There's millions apps on the > And making it runnable requires a developer account, etc. Sure that's definitely not an artificial barrier added to control what gets made... You don't need one to develop on Android by the way ;), nor do you need one on Windows... Linux... Mac... well actually only iOS come to minds, any other? > And that the end consequence of that is that they don't value the ability to do so? The consumer aren't aware of that, most of them doesn't want to makes apps, most of them doesn't know the barrier added actually affect their ability to access content.

by m00x 6y ago

nickff 6y ago

The problem is not that your premise is too complicated for others to understand, it's that the 'walled garden' is a trade-off which people disagree about. Walled gardens are safer, and usually have some implicit or explicit quality guarantee (like the Nintendo seal of quality). Open platforms allow for more flexibility and innovation by new entrants. On top of this disagreement, we have the meta-issue of whether business model innovation should be allowed; the USA generally permits new business models, whereas European governments are more restrictive.

rbecker 6y ago
> Walled gardens are safer, and usually have some implicit or explicit quality guarantee (like the Nintendo seal of quality). And consumers who want to limit themselves to the safety of Apple's app store are free to do so. But Apple goes a step beyond this, and prevents consumers who don't want to be locked-in this way, from using "unauthorized" stores or apps. It's false to claim that the only way to offer safety is to take away user freedom.
- nickff 6y ago
  >"It's false to claim that the only way to offer safety is to take away user freedom." Well, I didn't claim it was the only way, but it does seem like the simplest and possibly the safest way.
  - chii 6y ago
    and also conveniently benefits apple financially and monopolistically.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- Retric 6y ago
  Freedom and computer security are in fundamental opposition. It’s the same basic question as GC vs manual memory management. The only way to offer safety on a platform is to secure that platform. If Apple disables the API’s which lets apps access users contacts then they can be sure 3rd party iOS stores don’t compromise user’s privacy. If they allow API access and don’t vet stores then guess what that directly means breaches will occur. PS: If you disagree try and come up with some supporting argument.
  - cgriswald 6y ago
    > PS: If you disagree try and come up with some supporting argument. I downvoted you rather than giving you an argument. Here's why: You've edited your post at least four times. Three of those times was when I was trying to offer a counter-argument. The problem was, you kept changing yours. I'm honestly not sure what you believe, both because you changed it so many times, but also because you haven't defined your terms (e.g. whose freedom?). Finally, you make some bold claims, but you don't really support those claims with anything I find credible. In any case, the 'security' argument (and the associated 'reputation' argument you made in one your iterations) rings particularly hollow with me since Apple itself has already had—for decades—great success with a platform that is reasonably secure and relatively free compared to iOS: the Mac.
    - Retric 6y ago
      Objectively Mac OS has had more serious security issues than iOS, so at most you can say the trade off is worth it to you not that doesn’t exist. As to freedom, that was specifically used by the post I was responding to. But, if you’re unsure, consider it in terms of raw assembler vs python. Raw assembler allows more freedom, but that freedom comes at a clear cost. PS: And yes I edited to specific wording a few times for clarity. That’s a holdover from the days when hacker news would eat comments that where being edited for to long. Reputation is a major concern for Apple as a business, but outside of the scope of this discussion.
  - rbecker 6y ago
    > Freedom and computer security are in fundamental opposition. Only if you interpret "freedom" as "freedom for apps" instead of "freedom for the user". None of what you said precludes the user (I won't say "owner") being able to override Apple, or take Apple's place in deciding what their device may do. In your mind, is a platform only "secure" when ultimate control is with the manufacturer, and not the user? How much more "secure" were Apple's users in Hong Kong, after Apple decided to disable the app they were using to track the police?

cygx 6y ago

To play devil's advocate: PC aside, isn't this business as usual for gaming platforms?

cdash 6y ago
Gaming platforms are single use platforms. Mobile phones much like a PC are general purpose devices that peoples entire lives revolve around.
- pjmlp 6y ago
  Just like portable game consoles, with their app stores and internet connection.
- cgriswald 6y ago
  That's not a particularly compelling argument to me. I'd rather see direct comparisons made. Do gaming platforms require a 30% cut of all sales on the platform, including subscriptions? Do they forbid applications from discussing other subscription options? Etc. I'd say the GP isn't really playing devil's advocate, because he hasn't shown the comparison is apt nor that if it is apt, the gaming platforms aren't also a problem for consumers.
  - cygx 6y ago
    The 30% 'platform tax' originated with Nintendo. It included the cost of cartridge manufacturing, but nowadays, 'everyone' (Apple, Google, Nintendo, Sony, Valve, Microsoft) takes it. [1] I have no idea how their pricing models differ regarding in app purchases, subscription, etc, and feel disinclined to investigate for a one-off comment... [1] https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-08-19/epic-games-fortnite-battle-with-apple-and-google-can-be-traced-to-nintendo-tax https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-08-19/epic-game...
  - csharptwdec19 6y ago
    Well in some cases there are tax implications. No clue whether it's the case here, but by example in the EU, a 'Computer' has different import duties/etc compared to a 'Game Console' (there was some speculation that the PS3's 'Other OS' mode was an attempt to get that better classification.) So my question would be whether there are tax implications.

danbolt 6y ago

I mentioned this in another comment, but I don’t really think of my interactions with my smartphone as the same as my computer. I might do some similar things with both, but I think I treat a phone much more like an appliance these days. Because of that, I find I still purchase iPhones, but never Apple computers anymore.

simonh 6y ago

> What if you couldn't install what you wanted and everything would have to go through a protected store? You mean like on my Nintendo Switch, which I knew worked like that when I bought it and was part of my calculation when buying it?

tjoff 6y ago

Unless people stop buying apple products that is coming to a future near you. I will never get why people will so happily pay to get locked into an ecosystem they are guaranteed to be extorted by.

Barrin92 6y ago

Related point maybe worth bringing up, imagine if Windows had complete control over the distribution of videogames when the industry was in its infancy? Would we ever have gotten some of the more controversial games at the time that have become genre defining like Doom or Wolfenstein? And would we be better off if all game studios would have to pay 30% to Microsoft? It's ridiculous. We grew up with the (relative, before someone starts a gnu/linux rant) freedom to install on our PCs what we wanted, why do kids today not deserve the same thing?

ethbr0 6y ago
One huge subterranean component of this that we don't talk about -- we have overengineered platforms. In the pre-90s, you bashed things out of the same primatives everyone else had access to. Now, even getting a simple app up and running on Android or iOS requires abstraction-on-abstraction-on-boilerplate. And you still don't know what the lower layers are doing. And making it runnable requires a developer account, etc. Are we surprised these days that kids (and everyone else) don't see "writing an app" as something they can just try? And that the end consequence of that is that they don't value the ability to do so? We've engineered our platforms to look like the companies that produced them: highly optimized, but simultaneously bloated and overly complex.
- dwild 6y ago
  > Now, even getting a simple app up and running on Android or iOS requires abstraction-on-abstraction-on-boilerplate. And you still don't know what the lower layers are doing. And there's plenty of people ready to write theses abstraction in the open source world. > Are we surprised these days that kids (and everyone else) don't see "writing an app" as something they can just try? It's just as easy and I see just as many kids trying than before. There's millions apps on the > And making it runnable requires a developer account, etc. Sure that's definitely not an artificial barrier added to control what gets made... You don't need one to develop on Android by the way ;), nor do you need one on Windows... Linux... Mac... well actually only iOS come to minds, any other? > And that the end consequence of that is that they don't value the ability to do so? The consumer aren't aware of that, most of them doesn't want to makes apps, most of them doesn't know the barrier added actually affect their ability to access content.