16 ms·

I see no evidence that this harms consumers at all. Quite the opposite. I like the walled garden and have no interest in it going away. I like that my mom can

I see no evidence that this harms consumers at all. Quite the opposite. I like the walled garden and have no interest in it going away. I like that my mom can install apps and not worry about them spying on her. I like that developers aren’t allowed to use their own payment processors. I don’t want to input my credit card into your black box payment system that might or might not charge me correctly. I see that it does harm developers, but that’s a different conversation entirely. If you want to install whatever apps you want, buy an android phone! And have fun while their bloat ware and preinstalled crap spams you with notifications and scams you.

carlisle_ 6y ago
>I see that it does harm developers, but that’s a different conversation entirely. This is generally the conversation that's happening here. People talking about competition aren't talking about it as it relates to the quality of the product, they're talking about it from an economic perspective.
reader_mode 6y ago
>I see no evidence that this harms consumers at all. Quite the opposite. Your entire argument is refuted if Apple isn't allowed to abuse it's market position and you're allowed to have "Apple Pay +30% price" "Stripe Payment" "Payment X" - you would quickly see the real value of App Store and Apple Payment processing convenience - that 30% would probably come down to 10% where it provides the convenience value. If consumers weren't harmed consumer choice would have no effect. This "users are idiots and they need Apple to tell them what's best for them" is like Stockholm syndrome with Apple fans, it's especially entertaining to hear it so often on a "hacker" newsgroup. Good thing papa Apple decided you can't have that dangerous Fortnite scam tricking you in to using a different payment system, you're better off not wasting time on games anyway - really if you look at it that way they are saving you from bad choices two times - win/win for Apple users I'd say.
- TheOtherHobbes 6y ago
  It's not Stockholm syndrome, it's familiarity with how things worked on other platform. Windows/IE literally wasted hundreds of millions of person hours by being leaky, insecure, virus-prone crap. You could - if you chose to - make quite a nice income out of sending out phishing emails on our open email system. Likewise for randomsware, only more so. And so on. iOS may have other flaws, but worrying that your iPhone is going to be locked by a Bitcoin hacker isn't one of them. And realistically, users are idiots - at least technically. We've all heard of PC users who click on every random thing and end up with twenty-odd toolbars and almost every possible virus. The only reason phones aren't the same is because security is locked down. These are consumer devices. They are not hacker devices. If you want an open hacker device, go build one and see if you can persuade people to buy it. You won't - of course - because in userland locked down security is a feature, not a bug. And users care more about not having to pay a ransom to unlock their own phones than they do about running with root privileges. Not having to think about this is valuable. Having said all that, there's definitely room to negotiate the costs of all of this, and also to open up selected services that can be proven to be secure. But those costs, the access to useful non-risky APIs for devs, and access for third party service providers, are all different issues to the core validity of the model itself.
  - friedman23 6y ago
    > Windows/IE literally wasted hundreds of millions of person hours by being leaky, insecure, virus-prone crap How do you explain that I've been using mac os for decades, I am able to install third party software, and I have not run into any of the issues you are describing?
  - saagarjha 6y ago
    > iOS may have other flaws, but worrying that your iPhone is going to be locked by a Bitcoin hacker isn't one of them. This is enforced by the platform sandbox, not the App Store. They are entirely separate things.
    - quesera 6y ago
      An alternate App Store would operate outside the sandbox though, right? Otherwise, the alternate App Store would be relegated to installing apps within its own sandbox. And people would continue to howl about it.
- nodamage 6y ago
  > you would quickly see the real value of App Store and Apple Payment processing convenience - that 30% would probably come down to 10% where it provides the convenience value. That might be good for developers but it does not necessarily also imply that consumers are harmed. You assume that if a store charged a lower rate that the savings would be passed onto the consumer, but this does not reflect the real world where developers might simply choose to pocket the difference instead. As an example, the Epic Games Store is charging $59.99 for the new release of Cyberpunk 2077. What's the cost on Steam? Also $59.99.
  - reader_mode 6y ago
    In that case everyone would keep using Apple to pay if it actually provided convince/value.
madeofpalk 6y ago
> I see no evidence that this harms consumers at all. Quite the opposite. Game streaming services do not exist on iOS. This is a harm. You cannot sign up for Netlifx on iOS. This is a harm.
- threeseed 6y ago
  Game streaming services do exist on iOS via the web browser. You can signup for Netflix on iOS via the web browser.
  - Orphis 6y ago
    Yet, you cannot have a link to Netflix or Spotify from their app to their own website as you could subscribe on it. And the browser is limited to whatever Apple allows. If it doesn't support some web API that has a native equivalent, you're out of luck. There are many of those.
  - madeofpalk 6y ago
    These are all concessions to the user experience that harm both consumers and developers. You Download the Netflix App and it Doesn't Work if you don't already have an account.
- heavyset_go 6y ago
  You can't install GPL software, or software with LGPL dependencies, on iOS devices because of the App Store's policy. Apple will even remove apps from their store if they think that they contain GPL or LGPL code. That's harm, too.
kaba0 6y ago
Why would letting another app store be installable on an iphone make your mom not able to just use App Store the same way she does it now? It’s simply not an either or question. It could be hidden the same way as developer options are in Android so your mon - with all due respect - will never accidentally enable side-loading, while I can actually use my phone for whatever I want.
- marshray 6y ago
  > It could be hidden the same way as developer options If checking a box buried three screens deep in Settings is all it takes to play Fortnite with your friends again, that box is going to get checked. And once it does, all the privacy and security of iOS devices goes out the window.
  - daveidol 6y ago
    There are other possible approaches that could be taken - e.g. a full bootloader wipe required, per-app permissions that must be allowed, federated third party app stores, parental controls, etc. Although at the end of the day people will still sometimes self-XSS themselves with the browser developer console or get phished etc. Human error/ignorance is always a possible issue, and I don't think we should restrict everyone else for it. Cars and knives are still allowed in the world.
  - tingol 6y ago
    The same could be said about 3rd party car mechanics that have MUCH HIGHER stakes (your life behind the wheel), yet it is illegal for car manufacturers to ban someone else from fixing your car. But Apple zealots act like a ending a monopoly on app installation will ruin everything. If the warning box says THIS IS A BIG SECURITY RISK and you click anyway it's your own choice, but a choice given in every single product and market created by man. A stupid phone is not where you draw the line and give it up.
    - marshray 6y ago
      Your analogy would apply if 3rd party car mechanics had a history of installing GPS trackers and hidden microphones. We decided to punish people criminally who betray our trust in that way in physical space, and that usually works well enough that we can have enough of a trust-based society that we can let someone else have unsupervised access to our car for short periods of time. For a variety of reasons, that trust has completely broken down with cell carriers and app developers. So we have to resort to a feudal system in which we rely on the local Lord to protect our interests. I hate it too, but I need someone looking out for my privacy and the security of my mobile device. Apple is the best I can find.
Kbelicius 6y ago
> I see no evidence that this harms consumers at all. Quite the opposite. When there is no competition the prices are higher. That is one way the consumers are harmed. > I like the walled garden and have no interest in it going away. I like that my mom can install apps and not worry about them spying on her. And you can have your walled garden and your mom can still install apps without worrying if they are spaying on them. Just use apples app store, simple as that. This is a non issue. > I like that developers aren’t allowed to use their own payment processors. I don’t want to input my credit card into your black box payment system that might or might not charge me correctly. You still have the option of using the apples app store. Again, a non issue for you.
- buzzerbetrayed 6y ago
  > You still have the option of using the apples app store. Again, a non issue for you. Except apps GP uses will leave the official App Store in favor of the jenky "type in your credit card to each individual app" app store. So it actually is in GP's favor for there not to be an option. Not saying that is justification, but let's not just pretend it's all roses.
  - dane-pgp 6y ago
    > apps GP uses will leave the official App Store Couldn't Apple offer a reasonable compromise that they only allow competing App Stores on their phones if those App Stores don't allow exclusive apps? App stores would still be able to compete on prices and payment methods. I suppose that all apps would still have to be approved by Apple, though, otherwise an app creator could just hide something that Apple objects to in their app somewhere, causing it to be disallowed from Apple's App Store but allowed in third party ones.
    - sellyme 6y ago
      > Couldn't Apple offer a reasonable compromise that they only allow competing App Stores on their phones if those App Stores don't allow exclusive apps? This would not be a reasonable compromise, as one of the primary reasons for wanting competing app stores is because of Apple's insane overreach in trying to control what you are and aren't allowed to run on your own phone. When I last had an iPhone, I wanted to install a heavy computing application that I had previously used on Android. I found out from the developers of that application that they had been rejected from the App Store because their app used too much CPU power. Apparently you're meant to just use the phone for decoration? Google has some similarly nonsense policies (good luck finding a good adblocker on the Play Store), but at least it takes all of five seconds to circumvent that. Apple allowing competing app stores while still having complete control over the content available on them does very little to solve the problems that their monopoly causes.
zouhair 6y ago
> I like that my mom can install apps and not worry about them spying on her. You really think Apple not doing that?
- buzzerbetrayed 6y ago
  Yes, I really think Apple is not (at least nowhere near the same degree as their competition). That's not how they make money.
  - isthatsoup 6y ago
    wait until you hear about Apple Ads then.
    - colejohnson66 6y ago
      Didn’t iAds fail because they weren’t invasive enough?
  - lern_too_spel 6y ago
    Apple spies more than its competition. The competition at least allows you to turn their spying off. There is no such option on Apple devices. Do you want to get your location without Apple also getting your location? You can't. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25355587 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25355587 Do you want to install an app on your device without telling Apple? You can't. Do you want to build apps for your own device and not have to reinstall them weekly without telling Apple your banking details? Tough luck. Platforms that don't give users an escape hatch to run their own software have nothing to stop them from abusing their users. They will abuse their users' privacy just as much as they will abuse their users' wallets.
andrewzah 6y ago
"I like that my mom can install apps and not worry about them spying on her." Until very recently (ios 13/14) apps did exactly this. There are arguments for the walled garden in terms of ensuring applications are built, signed, and distributed safely but developers (e.g. Facebook, etc) absolutely abused the system APIs to spy on users and collect data they had no right to. Even with the newer protections, apps randomly want to access my contacts or local network or location. The average user (like my mom and dad) are most likely just gonna click through those. I'm not arguing for ios/android here but we should be factual. I will say I like the walled garden for other reasons, such as a consistent payment gateway, etc.
- zepto 6y ago
  This is true, but it’s worth nothing that the protections are improving, and without the walled garden that wouldn’t be possible.
  - jimnotgym 6y ago
    That can't be true, privacy protection is only possible in a walled garden? So I can't get privacy on Linux? Even on Tails?
    - lotsofpulp 6y ago
      Can my non English fluent non computer literate parents get privacy on Linux, with an insatiable need to click on every link they see in WhatsApp?
      - heavyset_go 6y ago
        Yes, and out of the box, too.
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
  - ac29 6y ago
    > without the walled garden that wouldn’t be possible Aren't many of these protections at the OS level? Certainly apps installed from 3rd party App stores on Android still have to use the same permissions system/etc as those coming from the Google Store.
kbenson 6y ago
You state those preferences as if there's no possible way they could be provided while allowing competition. You have been presented a single option, and find that you like some aspects of the outcome. What's being hidden from you are other options where the same or similar outcomes can happen which might have even more benefits you would like. Right now you seem to have what you consider a benevolent dictator. What happens when the dictates are not as benevolent? You desires matter less to Apple than they do to organizations that actually have to worry about users users leaving more. That's because there's so much you give up if you leave. How long until this is abused? Also, what of those that are already abused because of Apple's power? Where Apple makes arbitrary decisions dictated not by the rules they've put forth but by internal business decisions and the desire to prop up their own offerings? What about a world where Apple was a clearinghouse for what was allowed on the phone, but followed a very clear set of rules that dictated what was allowed and not, and took a well defined fee to review apps, and allowed App stored to be registered and submit apps for review and apply their own additional rules on top? Wouldn't you get most the benefits you like out of that? Wouldn't that provide both competition and provide a similar level of security?
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- gambiting 6y ago
  What I like to compare it to, is cars. If you want to only ever take your Volkswagen to a Volkswagen dealer, buy Volkswagen parts and only carry out service done by Volkswagen engineers - you can absolutely do that and no one will or should ever stop you. But the second Volkswagen says you can't use a 3rd party part in your car that you bought - everyone should be up in their arms about it. There's a line here - and it should end at customers choice, always. The simplest way to do this would be like on android devices when you want to unlock a bootloader - a one way, single step process, where the phone wipes itself and reboots and is then "unlocked". If you did that on iPhones it would be enough of discouragement to stop all the mums and grandmas from accidentally installing dodgy software off the internet, but it still leaves the final choice to you, the user. You want a bodyguard, not a nanny - there's a difference.
filleokus 6y ago
I totally agree. We as techies /developers see problems from our perspective (too high of a cut, arbitrarily limiting what apps can be distributed, no third-party payment processing etc). And those are legit concerns. But in a typical “customer harm” perspective I think it’s very hard to make a case. Apps aren’t really that more expensive on iOS nor is the catalog smaller. However much we want a freer iOS experience, competing App Stores will just make iOS like modern gaming with a crappy custom App Store for each vendor. It would be more reasonable to have easier side loading for enthusiast or stuff Apple doesn’t want in its store.
- daveidol 6y ago
  So if you really want that level of centralization then at the very least can't we agree that Apple should reduce it's fee (30% of ALL revenue for some basic binary hosting and payment processing?) and be far less restrictive in it's decisions of what is allowed and what isn't (god forbid we have xcloud on iOS! the horror!)?
  - laurent92 6y ago
    Let’s assume the validation process takes $300 for each pass (each version, and initial release, has a consultant for 1/2 day, assuming the consultant takes that time to analyse code and has tools ready, and that 1/2 includes the occasional PR problem and the occasional escalation process). Given an app has an average of 30 versions, it costs Apple 9000$ per app, excluding the Marketplace hosting which must be minor compared to this. That means the breakeven for the 30% fee is at 27000 sales for a $3 app _in average_, but many apps make no sales, many others are free, many are cheaper than $3. So the 30% fee is effectively the bigger apps paying so the smaller apps can exist, and so a market can exist, with low-cost apps, which makes it interesting for customers to come. Therefore I don’t personally think the 30% cut is unfair; just that « the bigger paying for the smaller » is a debatable choice (which is the same idea as the bigger taxpayers paying for the poorest).
    - saagarjha 6y ago
      Half a day? You're being exceedingly generous. App reviewers usually spend something like 5-10 minutes on any given app, at that.
daveidol 6y ago
Apps in iOS are sandboxed anyway so spyware/virus concerns are less of an issue just due to the platform itself. But I agree with the other posters: literally making it impossible for me to willingly do something with my own device is not a feature. There are other ways to help prevent payment issues or privacy concerns - one of which is just sticking to the App Store (if it really is that valuable then won't the market decide?) - the other of which is requiring hoops to jump through like Google does with third-party applications on Android. Hell - look at Gatekeeper on macOS.
- com2kid 6y ago
  > Apps in iOS are sandboxed anyway so spyware/virus concerns are less of an issue just due to the platform itself. On iOS, certain API restrictions are enforced by the app review process. Not to mention some behavioral restrictions are purely enforced by the threat of being banned from the app store. For example, apps could[1] spam you 10x a day with 3rd party advertising push notifications, but that is banned by app store policy, not by any technical limitation of the platform. [1] For awhile this was a serious problem on Android until Google clamped down on it, again, using store policy not technical restrictions.
  - daveidol 6y ago
    Fair point, but I have to believe Apple could come up with technical solutions to these issues. Or not - in which case we end up with a world not that unlike macOS. Which isn't that bad in my opinion. I'd still rather have that option than being told I can't do what I want with my own hardware.
    - com2kid 6y ago
      MacOS was never a large enough target for malware and adware. Think pre-SP2 Windows XP. Think the JRE updater installing the Ask Jeeves toolbar. (Or Chrome, that was slimy....) Drive by app installs initiated from Safari on iOS would be Bonzai Buddy all over again. Right now if a handful of misbehaving apps makes it past the app store review process, it is in the news. What happens if that review store process is no longer there? How many alternative keyboards will be going around stealing credentials? How many apps spamming ads 24/7?
an0n1m0u2 6y ago
You can have a walled garden and at the same time have an exit to that garden. Apple should have their appstore with all their security measures for payment but they shouldn't prevent a third party from making an app and offering it through side loading. Most of people might still want to use the appstore because it has the reputation of being safe. I don't see how the garden and freedom are mutually exclusive. You just tell your mom to stay in the garden and this is what most non technical people usually do on android.
julienb_sea 6y ago
I hear you but there is actual customer harm. There are obviously silly UX things that happen in Apple world. Example: you cannot buy Kindle books in the Kindle app as they would be subject to 30% fees. You have to go to the web browser to buy the books. Apple inserting itself into this sort of marketplace transaction is highly questionable. The google play store offers the same level of protections around their internal payment platform and you can confidently download apps from verified developers.
- saagarjha 6y ago
  Not only do you have to go to a web browser to buy the books, you can't tell people to use a web browser! This kind of muzzling is frankly absurd–if Apple is proud of the App Store rules, then why can't developers tell their users about them?
RIMR 6y ago
Look, you make a ton of valid points. If you like the walled garden, enjoy it. Thing is, Apple and Google both offer the exact same benefits. They approve what gets published, they listen to complaints, they control some aspects of how you are allowed to code for their platforms. They lock you into their payment processor and they take a cut. The difference is that if I want out of that comfy, protected walled garden, I have to do different things to get out. On Android, I go to my security settings, enable third party sources, and then download alternative app store APKs from sites like Amazon and F-Droid. The garden isn't a jail. On iOS, I either have to sideload software via my lighting cable in developer mode, or "jailbreak" (the garden is a jail) the operating system using third party hacks allowing me to install from new sources. And sure, rooting Android or iOS is typically a hacky chore, but at least the Android rooting tool is published by Google.
- zepto 6y ago
  One might say that the fact that Android offers this alternative, means Apple shouldn’t be forced to provide it.
- voltagex_ 6y ago
  There's a big difference between * rooting the phone with an exploit * rooting the phone with a modified boot image from original firmware (is this even possible any more?) * installing a new ROM that allows root access I think if I rooted my Note 9 it would permanently mark the phone as having been "tampered with", and at least on a 3rd party ROM I'd lose Samsung/Google Pay
Andrew_nenakhov 6y ago
This again. Think about users in totalitarian countries who can't use the apps they need because Apple subserviently removed those apps from that country's section of appstore. It is widely known that Apple complies with such requests by local authorities - there is no Signal in China's AppStore. Now, if you like your walled garden, ok, whatever, some people love their chains, but why do you feel entitled to impose the same slavish conditions on everyone else?
grumple 6y ago
> I see no evidence that this harms consumers at all. Quite the opposite. Then you are blindfolded. Many companies refuse to build for ios or charge more because of it. This isn't theory, it's fact supported by those companies and even the smallest amount of applied reason. > I like the walled garden and have no interest in it going away. I like that my mom can install apps and not worry about them spying on her. Apple is spying on you. Perhaps you missed the bit where they phone home with every app that you open, thereby fingerprinting and tracking you. > I like that developers aren’t allowed to use their own payment processors. I don’t want to input my credit card into your black box payment system that might or might not charge me correctly. This is a nice feature, but consumer choice exists. don't like it, don't use apps that require a different payment processor. > I see that it does harm developers, but that’s a different conversation entirely. It's really not. If the people making the apps lose, that's a problem. > If you want to install whatever apps you want, buy an android phone! And have fun while their bloat ware and preinstalled crap spams you with notifications and scams you. No thanks, I like my apple integrations but I also want to install what I want.
burnte 6y ago
> I see no evidence that this harms consumers at all. Quite the opposite. You don't have to, others, like me, do. I have been harmed by the App stores capricious rules. You can have the walled garden and still preserve my ability to have apps I want.
Valkhyr 6y ago
Great that you represent all consumers. I guess the debate's over then.
stale2002 6y ago
Fortunately, even if competing app stores were allowed in the iphone, nobody is forcing you to use them. All you have to do is only use the apple app store. This way, everyone wins! You can use the apple app store, and other people can use other app stores.
Technically 6y ago
You're replying to evidence itself. The fact that there is no evidence of widespread consumer impact is that nobody wishes to fund such a study.
littlestymaar 6y ago
> I like the walled garden and have no interest in it going away. I like that my mom can install apps and not worry about them spying on her. This is super ironic given how extensively Apple is spying on their customers. I guess you consider it OK too since it's Apple? And btw, Apple's policy absolutely doesn't prevent spying: Google Chrome is still spying her your browsing habits, Gmail is reading her emails, Whatsapp has all her contact information (including identity and phone numbers of non-consenting friends of her), etc. Apple policy is about malware, not user privacy.
cacarr 6y ago
Do you believe that all users should be subjected to policies that are best for your mom? What would be wrong with a buried setting that you could flip, allowing one to install non-App Store apps? "And have fun while their bloat ware and preinstalled crap ..." No such crap on this Pixel device I'm using.
bird_monster 6y ago
> I see no evidence that this harms consumers at all. Quite the opposite. You don't see how a lack of competition keeps prices unfairly high? > I like the walled garden and have no interest in it going away Competition does not mean anyone is taking your app store from you. > I like that my mom can install apps and not worry about them spying on her. Well one, they do, but two, no one is taking your mom's app store away. > I don’t want to input my credit card into your black box payment system that might or might not charge me correctly. No one is suggesting you do this? > I see that it does harm developers, but that’s a different conversation entirely. It harms everyone. > If you want to install whatever apps you want, buy an android phone! And have fun while their bloat ware and preinstalled crap spams you with notifications and scams you. I want to install whatever applications I'd like on the computer system I paid a thousand dollars for. And I guess you didn't notice the un-removable iPhone apps on your phone when you bought it? Or is that some special kind of fancy bloatware?
vinniejames 6y ago
Your mom can continue to use the apple store in that case

carlisle_ 6y ago

>I see that it does harm developers, but that’s a different conversation entirely. This is generally the conversation that's happening here. People talking about competition aren't talking about it as it relates to the quality of the product, they're talking about it from an economic perspective.

reader_mode 6y ago

>I see no evidence that this harms consumers at all. Quite the opposite. Your entire argument is refuted if Apple isn't allowed to abuse it's market position and you're allowed to have "Apple Pay +30% price" "Stripe Payment" "Payment X" - you would quickly see the real value of App Store and Apple Payment processing convenience - that 30% would probably come down to 10% where it provides the convenience value. If consumers weren't harmed consumer choice would have no effect. This "users are idiots and they need Apple to tell them what's best for them" is like Stockholm syndrome with Apple fans, it's especially entertaining to hear it so often on a "hacker" newsgroup. Good thing papa Apple decided you can't have that dangerous Fortnite scam tricking you in to using a different payment system, you're better off not wasting time on games anyway - really if you look at it that way they are saving you from bad choices two times - win/win for Apple users I'd say.

TheOtherHobbes 6y ago
It's not Stockholm syndrome, it's familiarity with how things worked on other platform. Windows/IE literally wasted hundreds of millions of person hours by being leaky, insecure, virus-prone crap. You could - if you chose to - make quite a nice income out of sending out phishing emails on our open email system. Likewise for randomsware, only more so. And so on. iOS may have other flaws, but worrying that your iPhone is going to be locked by a Bitcoin hacker isn't one of them. And realistically, users are idiots - at least technically. We've all heard of PC users who click on every random thing and end up with twenty-odd toolbars and almost every possible virus. The only reason phones aren't the same is because security is locked down. These are consumer devices. They are not hacker devices. If you want an open hacker device, go build one and see if you can persuade people to buy it. You won't - of course - because in userland locked down security is a feature, not a bug. And users care more about not having to pay a ransom to unlock their own phones than they do about running with root privileges. Not having to think about this is valuable. Having said all that, there's definitely room to negotiate the costs of all of this, and also to open up selected services that can be proven to be secure. But those costs, the access to useful non-risky APIs for devs, and access for third party service providers, are all different issues to the core validity of the model itself.
- friedman23 6y ago
  > Windows/IE literally wasted hundreds of millions of person hours by being leaky, insecure, virus-prone crap How do you explain that I've been using mac os for decades, I am able to install third party software, and I have not run into any of the issues you are describing?
- saagarjha 6y ago
  > iOS may have other flaws, but worrying that your iPhone is going to be locked by a Bitcoin hacker isn't one of them. This is enforced by the platform sandbox, not the App Store. They are entirely separate things.
  - quesera 6y ago
    An alternate App Store would operate outside the sandbox though, right? Otherwise, the alternate App Store would be relegated to installing apps within its own sandbox. And people would continue to howl about it.
nodamage 6y ago
> you would quickly see the real value of App Store and Apple Payment processing convenience - that 30% would probably come down to 10% where it provides the convenience value. That might be good for developers but it does not necessarily also imply that consumers are harmed. You assume that if a store charged a lower rate that the savings would be passed onto the consumer, but this does not reflect the real world where developers might simply choose to pocket the difference instead. As an example, the Epic Games Store is charging $59.99 for the new release of Cyberpunk 2077. What's the cost on Steam? Also $59.99.
- reader_mode 6y ago
  In that case everyone would keep using Apple to pay if it actually provided convince/value.

madeofpalk 6y ago

> I see no evidence that this harms consumers at all. Quite the opposite. Game streaming services do not exist on iOS. This is a harm. You cannot sign up for Netlifx on iOS. This is a harm.

threeseed 6y ago
Game streaming services do exist on iOS via the web browser. You can signup for Netflix on iOS via the web browser.
- Orphis 6y ago
  Yet, you cannot have a link to Netflix or Spotify from their app to their own website as you could subscribe on it. And the browser is limited to whatever Apple allows. If it doesn't support some web API that has a native equivalent, you're out of luck. There are many of those.
- madeofpalk 6y ago
  These are all concessions to the user experience that harm both consumers and developers. You Download the Netflix App and it Doesn't Work if you don't already have an account.
heavyset_go 6y ago
You can't install GPL software, or software with LGPL dependencies, on iOS devices because of the App Store's policy. Apple will even remove apps from their store if they think that they contain GPL or LGPL code. That's harm, too.

kaba0 6y ago

Why would letting another app store be installable on an iphone make your mom not able to just use App Store the same way she does it now? It’s simply not an either or question. It could be hidden the same way as developer options are in Android so your mon - with all due respect - will never accidentally enable side-loading, while I can actually use my phone for whatever I want.

marshray 6y ago
> It could be hidden the same way as developer options If checking a box buried three screens deep in Settings is all it takes to play Fortnite with your friends again, that box is going to get checked. And once it does, all the privacy and security of iOS devices goes out the window.
- daveidol 6y ago
  There are other possible approaches that could be taken - e.g. a full bootloader wipe required, per-app permissions that must be allowed, federated third party app stores, parental controls, etc. Although at the end of the day people will still sometimes self-XSS themselves with the browser developer console or get phished etc. Human error/ignorance is always a possible issue, and I don't think we should restrict everyone else for it. Cars and knives are still allowed in the world.
- tingol 6y ago
  The same could be said about 3rd party car mechanics that have MUCH HIGHER stakes (your life behind the wheel), yet it is illegal for car manufacturers to ban someone else from fixing your car. But Apple zealots act like a ending a monopoly on app installation will ruin everything. If the warning box says THIS IS A BIG SECURITY RISK and you click anyway it's your own choice, but a choice given in every single product and market created by man. A stupid phone is not where you draw the line and give it up.
  - marshray 6y ago
    Your analogy would apply if 3rd party car mechanics had a history of installing GPS trackers and hidden microphones. We decided to punish people criminally who betray our trust in that way in physical space, and that usually works well enough that we can have enough of a trust-based society that we can let someone else have unsupervised access to our car for short periods of time. For a variety of reasons, that trust has completely broken down with cell carriers and app developers. So we have to resort to a feudal system in which we rely on the local Lord to protect our interests. I hate it too, but I need someone looking out for my privacy and the security of my mobile device. Apple is the best I can find.

Kbelicius 6y ago

> I see no evidence that this harms consumers at all. Quite the opposite. When there is no competition the prices are higher. That is one way the consumers are harmed. > I like the walled garden and have no interest in it going away. I like that my mom can install apps and not worry about them spying on her. And you can have your walled garden and your mom can still install apps without worrying if they are spaying on them. Just use apples app store, simple as that. This is a non issue. > I like that developers aren’t allowed to use their own payment processors. I don’t want to input my credit card into your black box payment system that might or might not charge me correctly. You still have the option of using the apples app store. Again, a non issue for you.

buzzerbetrayed 6y ago
> You still have the option of using the apples app store. Again, a non issue for you. Except apps GP uses will leave the official App Store in favor of the jenky "type in your credit card to each individual app" app store. So it actually is in GP's favor for there not to be an option. Not saying that is justification, but let's not just pretend it's all roses.
- dane-pgp 6y ago
  > apps GP uses will leave the official App Store Couldn't Apple offer a reasonable compromise that they only allow competing App Stores on their phones if those App Stores don't allow exclusive apps? App stores would still be able to compete on prices and payment methods. I suppose that all apps would still have to be approved by Apple, though, otherwise an app creator could just hide something that Apple objects to in their app somewhere, causing it to be disallowed from Apple's App Store but allowed in third party ones.
  - sellyme 6y ago
    > Couldn't Apple offer a reasonable compromise that they only allow competing App Stores on their phones if those App Stores don't allow exclusive apps? This would not be a reasonable compromise, as one of the primary reasons for wanting competing app stores is because of Apple's insane overreach in trying to control what you are and aren't allowed to run on your own phone. When I last had an iPhone, I wanted to install a heavy computing application that I had previously used on Android. I found out from the developers of that application that they had been rejected from the App Store because their app used too much CPU power. Apparently you're meant to just use the phone for decoration? Google has some similarly nonsense policies (good luck finding a good adblocker on the Play Store), but at least it takes all of five seconds to circumvent that. Apple allowing competing app stores while still having complete control over the content available on them does very little to solve the problems that their monopoly causes.

zouhair 6y ago

> I like that my mom can install apps and not worry about them spying on her. You really think Apple not doing that?

buzzerbetrayed 6y ago
Yes, I really think Apple is not (at least nowhere near the same degree as their competition). That's not how they make money.
- isthatsoup 6y ago
  wait until you hear about Apple Ads then.
  - colejohnson66 6y ago
    Didn’t iAds fail because they weren’t invasive enough?
- lern_too_spel 6y ago
  Apple spies more than its competition. The competition at least allows you to turn their spying off. There is no such option on Apple devices. Do you want to get your location without Apple also getting your location? You can't. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25355587 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25355587 Do you want to install an app on your device without telling Apple? You can't. Do you want to build apps for your own device and not have to reinstall them weekly without telling Apple your banking details? Tough luck. Platforms that don't give users an escape hatch to run their own software have nothing to stop them from abusing their users. They will abuse their users' privacy just as much as they will abuse their users' wallets.

andrewzah 6y ago

"I like that my mom can install apps and not worry about them spying on her." Until very recently (ios 13/14) apps did exactly this. There are arguments for the walled garden in terms of ensuring applications are built, signed, and distributed safely but developers (e.g. Facebook, etc) absolutely abused the system APIs to spy on users and collect data they had no right to. Even with the newer protections, apps randomly want to access my contacts or local network or location. The average user (like my mom and dad) are most likely just gonna click through those. I'm not arguing for ios/android here but we should be factual. I will say I like the walled garden for other reasons, such as a consistent payment gateway, etc.

zepto 6y ago
This is true, but it’s worth nothing that the protections are improving, and without the walled garden that wouldn’t be possible.
- jimnotgym 6y ago
  That can't be true, privacy protection is only possible in a walled garden? So I can't get privacy on Linux? Even on Tails?
  - lotsofpulp 6y ago
    Can my non English fluent non computer literate parents get privacy on Linux, with an insatiable need to click on every link they see in WhatsApp?
    - heavyset_go 6y ago
      Yes, and out of the box, too.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
- ac29 6y ago
  > without the walled garden that wouldn’t be possible Aren't many of these protections at the OS level? Certainly apps installed from 3rd party App stores on Android still have to use the same permissions system/etc as those coming from the Google Store.

kbenson 6y ago

You state those preferences as if there's no possible way they could be provided while allowing competition. You have been presented a single option, and find that you like some aspects of the outcome. What's being hidden from you are other options where the same or similar outcomes can happen which might have even more benefits you would like. Right now you seem to have what you consider a benevolent dictator. What happens when the dictates are not as benevolent? You desires matter less to Apple than they do to organizations that actually have to worry about users users leaving more. That's because there's so much you give up if you leave. How long until this is abused? Also, what of those that are already abused because of Apple's power? Where Apple makes arbitrary decisions dictated not by the rules they've put forth but by internal business decisions and the desire to prop up their own offerings? What about a world where Apple was a clearinghouse for what was allowed on the phone, but followed a very clear set of rules that dictated what was allowed and not, and took a well defined fee to review apps, and allowed App stored to be registered and submit apps for review and apply their own additional rules on top? Wouldn't you get most the benefits you like out of that? Wouldn't that provide both competition and provide a similar level of security?

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
gambiting 6y ago
What I like to compare it to, is cars. If you want to only ever take your Volkswagen to a Volkswagen dealer, buy Volkswagen parts and only carry out service done by Volkswagen engineers - you can absolutely do that and no one will or should ever stop you. But the second Volkswagen says you can't use a 3rd party part in your car that you bought - everyone should be up in their arms about it. There's a line here - and it should end at customers choice, always. The simplest way to do this would be like on android devices when you want to unlock a bootloader - a one way, single step process, where the phone wipes itself and reboots and is then "unlocked". If you did that on iPhones it would be enough of discouragement to stop all the mums and grandmas from accidentally installing dodgy software off the internet, but it still leaves the final choice to you, the user. You want a bodyguard, not a nanny - there's a difference.

filleokus 6y ago

I totally agree. We as techies /developers see problems from our perspective (too high of a cut, arbitrarily limiting what apps can be distributed, no third-party payment processing etc). And those are legit concerns. But in a typical “customer harm” perspective I think it’s very hard to make a case. Apps aren’t really that more expensive on iOS nor is the catalog smaller. However much we want a freer iOS experience, competing App Stores will just make iOS like modern gaming with a crappy custom App Store for each vendor. It would be more reasonable to have easier side loading for enthusiast or stuff Apple doesn’t want in its store.

daveidol 6y ago
So if you really want that level of centralization then at the very least can't we agree that Apple should reduce it's fee (30% of ALL revenue for some basic binary hosting and payment processing?) and be far less restrictive in it's decisions of what is allowed and what isn't (god forbid we have xcloud on iOS! the horror!)?
- laurent92 6y ago
  Let’s assume the validation process takes $300 for each pass (each version, and initial release, has a consultant for 1/2 day, assuming the consultant takes that time to analyse code and has tools ready, and that 1/2 includes the occasional PR problem and the occasional escalation process). Given an app has an average of 30 versions, it costs Apple 9000$ per app, excluding the Marketplace hosting which must be minor compared to this. That means the breakeven for the 30% fee is at 27000 sales for a $3 app _in average_, but many apps make no sales, many others are free, many are cheaper than $3. So the 30% fee is effectively the bigger apps paying so the smaller apps can exist, and so a market can exist, with low-cost apps, which makes it interesting for customers to come. Therefore I don’t personally think the 30% cut is unfair; just that « the bigger paying for the smaller » is a debatable choice (which is the same idea as the bigger taxpayers paying for the poorest).
  - saagarjha 6y ago
    Half a day? You're being exceedingly generous. App reviewers usually spend something like 5-10 minutes on any given app, at that.

daveidol 6y ago

Apps in iOS are sandboxed anyway so spyware/virus concerns are less of an issue just due to the platform itself. But I agree with the other posters: literally making it impossible for me to willingly do something with my own device is not a feature. There are other ways to help prevent payment issues or privacy concerns - one of which is just sticking to the App Store (if it really is that valuable then won't the market decide?) - the other of which is requiring hoops to jump through like Google does with third-party applications on Android. Hell - look at Gatekeeper on macOS.

com2kid 6y ago
> Apps in iOS are sandboxed anyway so spyware/virus concerns are less of an issue just due to the platform itself. On iOS, certain API restrictions are enforced by the app review process. Not to mention some behavioral restrictions are purely enforced by the threat of being banned from the app store. For example, apps could[1] spam you 10x a day with 3rd party advertising push notifications, but that is banned by app store policy, not by any technical limitation of the platform. [1] For awhile this was a serious problem on Android until Google clamped down on it, again, using store policy not technical restrictions.
- daveidol 6y ago
  Fair point, but I have to believe Apple could come up with technical solutions to these issues. Or not - in which case we end up with a world not that unlike macOS. Which isn't that bad in my opinion. I'd still rather have that option than being told I can't do what I want with my own hardware.
  - com2kid 6y ago
    MacOS was never a large enough target for malware and adware. Think pre-SP2 Windows XP. Think the JRE updater installing the Ask Jeeves toolbar. (Or Chrome, that was slimy....) Drive by app installs initiated from Safari on iOS would be Bonzai Buddy all over again. Right now if a handful of misbehaving apps makes it past the app store review process, it is in the news. What happens if that review store process is no longer there? How many alternative keyboards will be going around stealing credentials? How many apps spamming ads 24/7?

an0n1m0u2 6y ago

You can have a walled garden and at the same time have an exit to that garden. Apple should have their appstore with all their security measures for payment but they shouldn't prevent a third party from making an app and offering it through side loading. Most of people might still want to use the appstore because it has the reputation of being safe. I don't see how the garden and freedom are mutually exclusive. You just tell your mom to stay in the garden and this is what most non technical people usually do on android.

julienb_sea 6y ago

I hear you but there is actual customer harm. There are obviously silly UX things that happen in Apple world. Example: you cannot buy Kindle books in the Kindle app as they would be subject to 30% fees. You have to go to the web browser to buy the books. Apple inserting itself into this sort of marketplace transaction is highly questionable. The google play store offers the same level of protections around their internal payment platform and you can confidently download apps from verified developers.

saagarjha 6y ago
Not only do you have to go to a web browser to buy the books, you can't tell people to use a web browser! This kind of muzzling is frankly absurd–if Apple is proud of the App Store rules, then why can't developers tell their users about them?

RIMR 6y ago

Look, you make a ton of valid points. If you like the walled garden, enjoy it. Thing is, Apple and Google both offer the exact same benefits. They approve what gets published, they listen to complaints, they control some aspects of how you are allowed to code for their platforms. They lock you into their payment processor and they take a cut. The difference is that if I want out of that comfy, protected walled garden, I have to do different things to get out. On Android, I go to my security settings, enable third party sources, and then download alternative app store APKs from sites like Amazon and F-Droid. The garden isn't a jail. On iOS, I either have to sideload software via my lighting cable in developer mode, or "jailbreak" (the garden is a jail) the operating system using third party hacks allowing me to install from new sources. And sure, rooting Android or iOS is typically a hacky chore, but at least the Android rooting tool is published by Google.

zepto 6y ago
One might say that the fact that Android offers this alternative, means Apple shouldn’t be forced to provide it.
voltagex_ 6y ago
There's a big difference between * rooting the phone with an exploit * rooting the phone with a modified boot image from original firmware (is this even possible any more?) * installing a new ROM that allows root access I think if I rooted my Note 9 it would permanently mark the phone as having been "tampered with", and at least on a 3rd party ROM I'd lose Samsung/Google Pay

Andrew_nenakhov 6y ago

This again. Think about users in totalitarian countries who can't use the apps they need because Apple subserviently removed those apps from that country's section of appstore. It is widely known that Apple complies with such requests by local authorities - there is no Signal in China's AppStore. Now, if you like your walled garden, ok, whatever, some people love their chains, but why do you feel entitled to impose the same slavish conditions on everyone else?

grumple 6y ago

> I see no evidence that this harms consumers at all. Quite the opposite. Then you are blindfolded. Many companies refuse to build for ios or charge more because of it. This isn't theory, it's fact supported by those companies and even the smallest amount of applied reason. > I like the walled garden and have no interest in it going away. I like that my mom can install apps and not worry about them spying on her. Apple is spying on you. Perhaps you missed the bit where they phone home with every app that you open, thereby fingerprinting and tracking you. > I like that developers aren’t allowed to use their own payment processors. I don’t want to input my credit card into your black box payment system that might or might not charge me correctly. This is a nice feature, but consumer choice exists. don't like it, don't use apps that require a different payment processor. > I see that it does harm developers, but that’s a different conversation entirely. It's really not. If the people making the apps lose, that's a problem. > If you want to install whatever apps you want, buy an android phone! And have fun while their bloat ware and preinstalled crap spams you with notifications and scams you. No thanks, I like my apple integrations but I also want to install what I want.

burnte 6y ago

> I see no evidence that this harms consumers at all. Quite the opposite. You don't have to, others, like me, do. I have been harmed by the App stores capricious rules. You can have the walled garden and still preserve my ability to have apps I want.

Valkhyr 6y ago

Great that you represent all consumers. I guess the debate's over then.

stale2002 6y ago

Fortunately, even if competing app stores were allowed in the iphone, nobody is forcing you to use them. All you have to do is only use the apple app store. This way, everyone wins! You can use the apple app store, and other people can use other app stores.

Technically 6y ago

You're replying to evidence itself. The fact that there is no evidence of widespread consumer impact is that nobody wishes to fund such a study.

littlestymaar 6y ago

> I like the walled garden and have no interest in it going away. I like that my mom can install apps and not worry about them spying on her. This is super ironic given how extensively Apple is spying on their customers. I guess you consider it OK too since it's Apple? And btw, Apple's policy absolutely doesn't prevent spying: Google Chrome is still spying her your browsing habits, Gmail is reading her emails, Whatsapp has all her contact information (including identity and phone numbers of non-consenting friends of her), etc. Apple policy is about malware, not user privacy.

cacarr 6y ago

Do you believe that all users should be subjected to policies that are best for your mom? What would be wrong with a buried setting that you could flip, allowing one to install non-App Store apps? "And have fun while their bloat ware and preinstalled crap ..." No such crap on this Pixel device I'm using.

bird_monster 6y ago

> I see no evidence that this harms consumers at all. Quite the opposite. You don't see how a lack of competition keeps prices unfairly high? > I like the walled garden and have no interest in it going away Competition does not mean anyone is taking your app store from you. > I like that my mom can install apps and not worry about them spying on her. Well one, they do, but two, no one is taking your mom's app store away. > I don’t want to input my credit card into your black box payment system that might or might not charge me correctly. No one is suggesting you do this? > I see that it does harm developers, but that’s a different conversation entirely. It harms everyone. > If you want to install whatever apps you want, buy an android phone! And have fun while their bloat ware and preinstalled crap spams you with notifications and scams you. I want to install whatever applications I'd like on the computer system I paid a thousand dollars for. And I guess you didn't notice the un-removable iPhone apps on your phone when you bought it? Or is that some special kind of fancy bloatware?

vinniejames 6y ago

Your mom can continue to use the apple store in that case