20 ms·

On the one hand, Apple is acting as a store curator and demanding that its customers be made aware of tracking software. On the other hand, Apple is acting as

On the one hand, Apple is acting as a store curator and demanding that its customers be made aware of tracking software. On the other hand, Apple is acting as a platform owner and demanding that they continue to act as the sole store curator on their platform. I do not see the hypocrisy.

aboringusername 6y ago
Epic demands Apple do thing = bad for Apple (good for Epic) no way Apple demand Facebook do thing = Good for Apple (bad for FB) yes way So Apple is allowed to get its own way, 100% of the time, no questions asked, what they want is what they get end of (by virtue of holding all the cards and owning the platform they dictate the rules on) How about no? You can play by your rules in your sandbox, but Epic has a right to demand it's allowed a sandbox in the same park, maybe Apple will be forced to change its business if everyone starts playing in Epic's sandbox and consumers decide Apple's policies are rubbish? That's the very definition of "competition" something Apple has avoided for over a decade at this point (as far as iOS inter-competition goes)
- ericmay 6y ago
  > Epic demands Apple do thing = bad for Apple (good for Epic) no way Epic demands Apple do a thing = bad for Apple, bad for customers (good for Epic) > Apple demand Facebook do thing = Good for Apple (bad for FB) yes way Apple demands Facebook do a thing = Good for Apple, good for customers (bad for Facebook) As a customer in these equations, I'm siding with Apple. > That's the very definition of "competition" something Apple has avoided for over a decade at this point Why do I have to use Epic's game store for Fortnite? Why can't I create my own skins with paint and sell them for whatever I want?
  - toinetoine 6y ago
    > Epic demands Apple do a thing = bad for Apple, bad for customers (good for Epic) How is allowing developers to use alternate payment platforms "bad for customers"? Or, if not on the phone, at least to allow them to add funds to their account from the browser/another platform and use it in their iOS app?
    - judge2020 6y ago
      So Apple allows Epic to put their store on iOS, but of course has to allow anyone to put their Store on iOS since otherwise it wouldn't be competitive. What about when Facebook makes Facebook its own marketplace, and the apps it distributes bypass the IDFA and track users without the popup, and of course don't have a privacy nutrition label? What about the hundreds of other $adtech companies bootstrapping their privacy-invasive, scam, and malicious apps (think 'your phone has a virus, call apple support' scams), is that not bad for the consumer? Surely we can just apply the Windows argument of "well they should get antivirus software and stop browsing shady sites" and go about our day having improved the landscape for the tech-literate, while having increased the risk other people take on by using their phone if they don't know the first thing about ensuring the apps they download are safe or privacy-preserving. That's why people buy iPhone - you literally do not have to worry about malicious App Store apps.
    - geocar 6y ago
      > How is allowing developers to use alternate payment platforms "bad for customers"? Because those "alternate payment platforms" don't prioritise consumer protection. Deliveroo did an update their software that wiped out my login settings. They didn't support apple login, so I lost access to my account. They won't recover my email because of a special character in it, and so they continued to charge me for their "plus" service every month, and avoided any emails I tried to send asking to stop (asking me to "log in" to change my payment settings!). Requiring apps use Apple's channel would have protected me from that experience.
  - ahiknsr 6y ago
    >Epic demands Apple do a thing = bad for Apple, bad for customers (good for Epic) not bad for all customers. I would like to side-load third party apps on my Iphone. Remember when app store banned a hn reader app because it showed Covid-related submissions[1] [1]https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24410652 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24410652
    - aardvarkr 6y ago
      Idk about you but I’ve been sideloading apps for years on my iPhone. There’s an entire subreddit for it if you’re really that interested.
  - dralley 6y ago
    How is Epic fighting to reduce Apple's cut of app store proceeds (30%!) bad for customers? At worst it's customer-neutral, at best it could reduce prices.
    - dijit 6y ago
      if you dislike uPlay and Origin, you should probably side with Apple on this.
      - Tom4hawk 6y ago
        I dislike uPlay and Origin and that's why I'm avoiding them (I still have some games on them but something has to be veeery interesting for me to buy it there - I'm even willing to pay more to get same thing on Steam). Why are we all talking about creating more stores? Shouldn't we opt into creating systems API for stores? That way you could choose store application and have products from all repositories (stores) available in there. On most Linuxes you add repository and it doesn't matter if you use official package manager, graphical one, or some unofficial bash script. You are able to install same software.
      - xxs 6y ago
        >if you dislike uPlay and Origin, you should probably side with Apple on this. Can you provide some reasoning behind that. What should I like, so I can dislike uPlay in the first place?
        dijit 6y ago
        Most people seem to be on board with Steam being their preferred distributor. Any alternatives are met with harsh vitriol- especially ones that are for distributing a a single companies property specifically. Such as EAs origin and Ubisoft’s uPlay (now called Ubisoft Connect). This is common in the gaming community. Full disclosure: I used to work in the studio that developed and maintained uplay. One of the games I worked on was an epic store exclusive (or, wouldn’t launch on steam) and it was met with harsh criticism for that. Many players outright said that they wouldn’t buy the game if it wasn’t on steam. Judging by PC sales, they held true to their word.
  - mfost 6y ago
    The ability to purchase a game on iPhone then use it on an Android next because I decided to change phones is invaluable for customers. This is something I'm pretty sure Epic would provide with their own app store.
  - xxs 6y ago
    How being locked in apple's ecosystem good for the customers.
- AYBABTME 6y ago
  What if consumers like it like that: one sandbox curated by Apple?
  - dariusj18 6y ago
    Then they continue to use the Apple App store.
    - dleslie 6y ago
      That may not be an option if work-necessary or social-connection-necessary software moves to an alternate store to enjoy less restrictions.
      - kevingadd 6y ago
        At the point where your device has work software on it all bets are off to begin with. Your employer might straight up require you to use an Android phone. What you're describing is your employer using their free choice to decide where to distribute apps. Incidentally, employers already have the ability to distribute custom iOS software for their employees, so your scenario wouldn't happen.
      - Karunamon 6y ago
        Work-necessary software probably involved an enterprise provisioning profile, which for all intents and purposes, gives the holder of the profile full rights to your phone. As for social, why isn't this happening on Android if it's so inevitable?
  - m12k 6y ago
    Those consumers should have every right to stay in that sandbox. And the rest of us should have the right to use a different one.
    - covercash 6y ago
      You do have that right, it’s called Android.
ed25519FUUU 6y ago
> On the one hand, Apple is acting as a store curator and demanding that its customers be made aware of tracking software. Can’t this still be true for the App Store though?
ApolloFortyNine 6y ago
How you can argue for less software freedoms, while paying a 30% tax for any app you distribute, is honestly mind boggling to me. >On the one hand, Apple is acting as a store curator and demanding that its customers be made aware of tracking software. This sounds like marketing. Apple is limiting what apps their customers have access to. I wonder if you would make the same argument if Apple starts blocking websites?
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- nickysielicki 6y ago
  It’s not about the outcome, it’s about reasoning from first principles and going where ever that leads you, regardless of how much you dislike the outcome. Nobody has to buy an iPhone, iPad, or MacBook. Apple has the right to create the software ecosystem they want to create. Their success in mobile computing is arguably a direct result of their closed ecosystem.
  - kevingadd 6y ago
    In the past US regulators have not agreed with your reasoning here. They broke up the original big telephone companies, for example.
    - zepto 6y ago
      Those had an actual monopoly - literally no alternative service provider.
      - kevingadd 6y ago
        If I want to use FaceTime to talk to my mother, the only way I can do that is by purchasing an iPhone. What's the difference? Do I have to buy my mom a new Android phone and repurchase all her apps and digital content to exercise my Consumer Freedom?
fbelzile 6y ago
I agree that there's no hypocrisy, but I think Apple is acting consistently as a platform owner in both cases. Yes, iOS users should being made aware of tracking software but it doesn't mean that they should continue being the sole store curator for their platform. We know from past experience that it's commercially viable for platform owners to successfully develop secure operating systems that allow third party developers to develop and distribute apps without an additional tax. We don't have to look very far either. macOS is a great example of where the App Store and third party developers can coexist. People should be able to choose to buy the app (for 30% more) using the App Store so that it's easy to ask for a refund, receive updates and for Apple to market apps they believe you'd like to use. But at the same time, Apple has no right to force people to overpay for services like Spotify on the App Store. Customers already pay to use a licensed copy of iOS on supported hardware. Governments have every right to protect the customer from perpetually getting screwed by Apple. At the very least, we shouldn't allow Apple to limit free speech so that developers can't mention a way for their users to save money.
- EveYoung 6y ago
  But users already can by an Android or Linux phone instead. It's not like Apple has the monopoly on smartphones.
  - fbelzile 6y ago
    You're missing the point. Nobody is arguing that Apple has a monopoly on the smartphone market. The problem is that Apple built an artificial monopoly in the distribution of apps by making the App Store the only curator of the platform. People who decided to purchase an iPhone with an iOS license should have the right to use the device to it's full extent (along with being able to fix it themselves if something breaks). If you don't feel safe running apps outside of the App Store, you don't need to!
    - Dracophoenix 6y ago
      That's like saying Nintendo has an artificial monopoly by allowing only allowing Nintendo approved games to be distributed for sales on their consoles. Or TV channels have an artificial monopoly for shows they buy the syndication/distribution rights for. At some point, someone decided to commit to a certain path. Calling the choice "anti-competitive" cheapens the word. >>People who decided to purchase an iPhone with an iOS license should have the right to use the device to it's full extent The US Copyright Office has already made it clear that jailbreaking is legal. That does not imply upon Apple an affirmative obligation to fix a jailbroken phone or create a open/fixable hardware and software platform, or make either of the two easy to accomplish. Only a negative obligation to not interfere with those who take such risks at their own expense.
suifbwish 6y ago
Is it really any different than being delisted from Google for political reasons?
tick_tock_tick 6y ago
> Curator No drugs, no porn, nothing offensive. Maybe if Apple stopped being such a moral busy body people this would be less of an issue.

aboringusername 6y ago

Epic demands Apple do thing = bad for Apple (good for Epic) no way Apple demand Facebook do thing = Good for Apple (bad for FB) yes way So Apple is allowed to get its own way, 100% of the time, no questions asked, what they want is what they get end of (by virtue of holding all the cards and owning the platform they dictate the rules on) How about no? You can play by your rules in your sandbox, but Epic has a right to demand it's allowed a sandbox in the same park, maybe Apple will be forced to change its business if everyone starts playing in Epic's sandbox and consumers decide Apple's policies are rubbish? That's the very definition of "competition" something Apple has avoided for over a decade at this point (as far as iOS inter-competition goes)

ericmay 6y ago
> Epic demands Apple do thing = bad for Apple (good for Epic) no way Epic demands Apple do a thing = bad for Apple, bad for customers (good for Epic) > Apple demand Facebook do thing = Good for Apple (bad for FB) yes way Apple demands Facebook do a thing = Good for Apple, good for customers (bad for Facebook) As a customer in these equations, I'm siding with Apple. > That's the very definition of "competition" something Apple has avoided for over a decade at this point Why do I have to use Epic's game store for Fortnite? Why can't I create my own skins with paint and sell them for whatever I want?
- toinetoine 6y ago
  > Epic demands Apple do a thing = bad for Apple, bad for customers (good for Epic) How is allowing developers to use alternate payment platforms "bad for customers"? Or, if not on the phone, at least to allow them to add funds to their account from the browser/another platform and use it in their iOS app?
  - judge2020 6y ago
    So Apple allows Epic to put their store on iOS, but of course has to allow anyone to put their Store on iOS since otherwise it wouldn't be competitive. What about when Facebook makes Facebook its own marketplace, and the apps it distributes bypass the IDFA and track users without the popup, and of course don't have a privacy nutrition label? What about the hundreds of other $adtech companies bootstrapping their privacy-invasive, scam, and malicious apps (think 'your phone has a virus, call apple support' scams), is that not bad for the consumer? Surely we can just apply the Windows argument of "well they should get antivirus software and stop browsing shady sites" and go about our day having improved the landscape for the tech-literate, while having increased the risk other people take on by using their phone if they don't know the first thing about ensuring the apps they download are safe or privacy-preserving. That's why people buy iPhone - you literally do not have to worry about malicious App Store apps.
  - geocar 6y ago
    > How is allowing developers to use alternate payment platforms "bad for customers"? Because those "alternate payment platforms" don't prioritise consumer protection. Deliveroo did an update their software that wiped out my login settings. They didn't support apple login, so I lost access to my account. They won't recover my email because of a special character in it, and so they continued to charge me for their "plus" service every month, and avoided any emails I tried to send asking to stop (asking me to "log in" to change my payment settings!). Requiring apps use Apple's channel would have protected me from that experience.
- ahiknsr 6y ago
  >Epic demands Apple do a thing = bad for Apple, bad for customers (good for Epic) not bad for all customers. I would like to side-load third party apps on my Iphone. Remember when app store banned a hn reader app because it showed Covid-related submissions[1] [1]https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24410652 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24410652
  - aardvarkr 6y ago
    Idk about you but I’ve been sideloading apps for years on my iPhone. There’s an entire subreddit for it if you’re really that interested.
- dralley 6y ago
  How is Epic fighting to reduce Apple's cut of app store proceeds (30%!) bad for customers? At worst it's customer-neutral, at best it could reduce prices.
  - dijit 6y ago
    if you dislike uPlay and Origin, you should probably side with Apple on this.
    - Tom4hawk 6y ago
      I dislike uPlay and Origin and that's why I'm avoiding them (I still have some games on them but something has to be veeery interesting for me to buy it there - I'm even willing to pay more to get same thing on Steam). Why are we all talking about creating more stores? Shouldn't we opt into creating systems API for stores? That way you could choose store application and have products from all repositories (stores) available in there. On most Linuxes you add repository and it doesn't matter if you use official package manager, graphical one, or some unofficial bash script. You are able to install same software.
    - xxs 6y ago
      >if you dislike uPlay and Origin, you should probably side with Apple on this. Can you provide some reasoning behind that. What should I like, so I can dislike uPlay in the first place?
      - dijit 6y ago
        Most people seem to be on board with Steam being their preferred distributor. Any alternatives are met with harsh vitriol- especially ones that are for distributing a a single companies property specifically. Such as EAs origin and Ubisoft’s uPlay (now called Ubisoft Connect). This is common in the gaming community. Full disclosure: I used to work in the studio that developed and maintained uplay. One of the games I worked on was an epic store exclusive (or, wouldn’t launch on steam) and it was met with harsh criticism for that. Many players outright said that they wouldn’t buy the game if it wasn’t on steam. Judging by PC sales, they held true to their word.
- mfost 6y ago
  The ability to purchase a game on iPhone then use it on an Android next because I decided to change phones is invaluable for customers. This is something I'm pretty sure Epic would provide with their own app store.
- xxs 6y ago
  How being locked in apple's ecosystem good for the customers.
AYBABTME 6y ago
What if consumers like it like that: one sandbox curated by Apple?
- dariusj18 6y ago
  Then they continue to use the Apple App store.
  - dleslie 6y ago
    That may not be an option if work-necessary or social-connection-necessary software moves to an alternate store to enjoy less restrictions.
    - kevingadd 6y ago
      At the point where your device has work software on it all bets are off to begin with. Your employer might straight up require you to use an Android phone. What you're describing is your employer using their free choice to decide where to distribute apps. Incidentally, employers already have the ability to distribute custom iOS software for their employees, so your scenario wouldn't happen.
    - Karunamon 6y ago
      Work-necessary software probably involved an enterprise provisioning profile, which for all intents and purposes, gives the holder of the profile full rights to your phone. As for social, why isn't this happening on Android if it's so inevitable?
- m12k 6y ago
  Those consumers should have every right to stay in that sandbox. And the rest of us should have the right to use a different one.
  - covercash 6y ago
    You do have that right, it’s called Android.

ed25519FUUU 6y ago

> On the one hand, Apple is acting as a store curator and demanding that its customers be made aware of tracking software. Can’t this still be true for the App Store though?

ApolloFortyNine 6y ago

How you can argue for less software freedoms, while paying a 30% tax for any app you distribute, is honestly mind boggling to me. >On the one hand, Apple is acting as a store curator and demanding that its customers be made aware of tracking software. This sounds like marketing. Apple is limiting what apps their customers have access to. I wonder if you would make the same argument if Apple starts blocking websites?

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
nickysielicki 6y ago
It’s not about the outcome, it’s about reasoning from first principles and going where ever that leads you, regardless of how much you dislike the outcome. Nobody has to buy an iPhone, iPad, or MacBook. Apple has the right to create the software ecosystem they want to create. Their success in mobile computing is arguably a direct result of their closed ecosystem.
- kevingadd 6y ago
  In the past US regulators have not agreed with your reasoning here. They broke up the original big telephone companies, for example.
  - zepto 6y ago
    Those had an actual monopoly - literally no alternative service provider.
    - kevingadd 6y ago
      If I want to use FaceTime to talk to my mother, the only way I can do that is by purchasing an iPhone. What's the difference? Do I have to buy my mom a new Android phone and repurchase all her apps and digital content to exercise my Consumer Freedom?

fbelzile 6y ago

I agree that there's no hypocrisy, but I think Apple is acting consistently as a platform owner in both cases. Yes, iOS users should being made aware of tracking software but it doesn't mean that they should continue being the sole store curator for their platform. We know from past experience that it's commercially viable for platform owners to successfully develop secure operating systems that allow third party developers to develop and distribute apps without an additional tax. We don't have to look very far either. macOS is a great example of where the App Store and third party developers can coexist. People should be able to choose to buy the app (for 30% more) using the App Store so that it's easy to ask for a refund, receive updates and for Apple to market apps they believe you'd like to use. But at the same time, Apple has no right to force people to overpay for services like Spotify on the App Store. Customers already pay to use a licensed copy of iOS on supported hardware. Governments have every right to protect the customer from perpetually getting screwed by Apple. At the very least, we shouldn't allow Apple to limit free speech so that developers can't mention a way for their users to save money.

EveYoung 6y ago
But users already can by an Android or Linux phone instead. It's not like Apple has the monopoly on smartphones.
- fbelzile 6y ago
  You're missing the point. Nobody is arguing that Apple has a monopoly on the smartphone market. The problem is that Apple built an artificial monopoly in the distribution of apps by making the App Store the only curator of the platform. People who decided to purchase an iPhone with an iOS license should have the right to use the device to it's full extent (along with being able to fix it themselves if something breaks). If you don't feel safe running apps outside of the App Store, you don't need to!
  - Dracophoenix 6y ago
    That's like saying Nintendo has an artificial monopoly by allowing only allowing Nintendo approved games to be distributed for sales on their consoles. Or TV channels have an artificial monopoly for shows they buy the syndication/distribution rights for. At some point, someone decided to commit to a certain path. Calling the choice "anti-competitive" cheapens the word. >>People who decided to purchase an iPhone with an iOS license should have the right to use the device to it's full extent The US Copyright Office has already made it clear that jailbreaking is legal. That does not imply upon Apple an affirmative obligation to fix a jailbroken phone or create a open/fixable hardware and software platform, or make either of the two easy to accomplish. Only a negative obligation to not interfere with those who take such risks at their own expense.

suifbwish 6y ago

Is it really any different than being delisted from Google for political reasons?

tick_tock_tick 6y ago

> Curator No drugs, no porn, nothing offensive. Maybe if Apple stopped being such a moral busy body people this would be less of an issue.