7 ms·

Who said remove them? Access to other app stores could just as easily let you pick one with more control and review instead of less. That should be up to the u

by Daho0n 5y ago

Who said remove them? Access to other app stores could just as easily let you pick one with more control and review instead of less. That should be up to the user. Not you, me or Apple.

zepto 5y ago
> That should be up to the user. Not you, me or Apple. It’s pretty obvious why this is flawed: a lot of people will end up being sold on scammy or privacy invading stores. You’ll be able to blame them for making the wrong choice, but it won’t actually be their fault. It will be the fault of those who prevented Apple from offering a curated environment.
- Apocryphon 5y ago
  > It’s pretty obvious why this is flawed: a lot of people will end up being sold on scammy or privacy invading stores. Why? The vast majority will continue to use the App Store. Apple could also manage this situation to both educate users and frame the situation in such a way so that only power users would leave the safety of the App Store to seek out sideloading or alternative stores. The dichotomy of walled garden vs. the Wild West is a false one and a failure of imagination that ignores the possibility of a middle ground. If you believe Apple can truly build a good walled garden, you can also believe that Apple can lift restrictions and allow third party stores in a sensible, well-managed way without sacrificing product quality. > It will be the fault of those who prevented Apple from offering a curated environment. Actually, it would be the fault of the scammers and privacy-invaders in question.
  - zepto 5y ago
    > The vast majority will continue to use the App Store. Definitely not true. Most people will be forced to install alternative stores because those stores will pay for exclusives on key apps. Players like Facebook and Google will open stores and only make their products available within them. > Apple could also manage this situation to both educate users and frame the situation in such a way so that only power users would leave the safety of the App Store to seek out sideloading or alternative stores. Not true. If Apple is forced to allow alternative store, anti-trust regulators will prevent Apple from portraying their own store as safer or from framing the situation. > The dichotomy of walled garden vs. the Wild West is a false one and a failure of imagination that ignores the possibility of a middle ground. If you believe Apple can truly build a good walled garden, you can also believe that Apple can lift restrictions and allow third party stores in a sensible, well-managed way without sacrificing product quality. Not true. Apple obviously cannot manage the behavior of third parties who they are forced to allow to build stores. > It will be the fault of those who prevented Apple from offering a curated environment. > Actually, it would be the fault of the scammers and privacy-invaders in question. Clearly false. We know the scammers and privacy invaders will act, but are currently limited in their ability to do so. Forcing Apple to reduce protections will be the proximate cause of their customers being vulnerable.
    - Apocryphon 5y ago
      > Definitely not true. Most people will be forced to install alternative stores because those stores will pay for exclusives on key apps. Players like Facebook and Google will open stores and only make their products available within them. That is debatable, and discussed throughout this thread, including in my own comments: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26799453 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26799453 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26799283 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26799283 Furthermore, there is clear evidence that what you are describing is not inevitable. Most Android users use the Google Play Store. Most MacOS users use the Mac App Store, and if they get their apps from elsewhere, it is not from competing app stores, unless you include game stores such as Steam or those run by Epic/EA/UbiSoft. Facebook does not run their own separate Android app store, even though they could. Amazon has one, largely to service their own unique Android Kindle devices, and they are not popular outside of them, nor do they have exclusivity over Amazon apps. Your doomsday scenario of myriads of exclusive app stores flies in the face of both existing trends, and market dynamics. As pointed out elsewhere, network effects prevents everyone from starting their own app store; users do not want to deal with dozens of accounts, and will just use Apple's built-in apps if you present too high a bar to getting your own. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26799335 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26799335 > Not true. If Apple is forced to allow alternative store, anti-trust regulators will prevent Apple from portraying their own store as safer or from framing the situation. Antitrust regulators have down little so far, making your fear-mongering claim even more dubious. Additionally, Apple is a master of dark patterns and social engineering, and can easily convey the safety of the App Store without stooping to heavy-handedness that would trigger regulators. > Not true. Apple obviously cannot manage the behavior of third parties who they are forced to allow to build stores. I find your lack of faith in Apple to be most disturbing. It's easily imaginable for Apple to re-frame the entire game so that they are the ones who are encouraging third parties to build stores, using official Apple App Store SDKs/APIs that come with Apple security standards built in. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26797189 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26797189 > Clearly false. We know the scammers and privacy invaders will act, but are currently limited in their ability to do so. You are refusing to acknowledge that when someone is scammed, the scammer is the one who holds the greatest fault for doing so. By doing so, you are passing the buck up the the responsibility chain. And, clearly not enough, as the OP demonstrates. Apple's App Store enforcement standards have been slipping compared to previous years. Its clear that scammers are far less limited than back when Apple was more diligent at stopping malicious apps from being on their own platform. > Forcing Apple to reduce protections will be the proximate cause of their customers being vulnerable. No one is forcing Apple to host scammy apps on their own platform. And you seem to be the only one who believes that Apple cannot extend protections even to hypothetical Apple-powered third party app stores. At the end of the day, they control the operating system. They would always have ultimate control. Finally, the original statement you are responding to is talking about the possibility of third party app stores that are more secure than the Apple App Store. Given the App Store's huge size and apparently slipping safety standards, it's certainly possible for new entrants to provide competition and offer an even better curated and secure experience than the one Apple provides. By preventing Apple from allowing the creation of such third party app stores, you are in effect the one forcing Apple to reduce protections, making their customers vulnerable.

by Daho0n 5y ago

Who said remove them? Access to other app stores could just as easily let you pick one with more control and review instead of less. That should be up to the user. Not you, me or Apple.

zepto 5y ago

> That should be up to the user. Not you, me or Apple. It’s pretty obvious why this is flawed: a lot of people will end up being sold on scammy or privacy invading stores. You’ll be able to blame them for making the wrong choice, but it won’t actually be their fault. It will be the fault of those who prevented Apple from offering a curated environment.

Apocryphon 5y ago
> It’s pretty obvious why this is flawed: a lot of people will end up being sold on scammy or privacy invading stores. Why? The vast majority will continue to use the App Store. Apple could also manage this situation to both educate users and frame the situation in such a way so that only power users would leave the safety of the App Store to seek out sideloading or alternative stores. The dichotomy of walled garden vs. the Wild West is a false one and a failure of imagination that ignores the possibility of a middle ground. If you believe Apple can truly build a good walled garden, you can also believe that Apple can lift restrictions and allow third party stores in a sensible, well-managed way without sacrificing product quality. > It will be the fault of those who prevented Apple from offering a curated environment. Actually, it would be the fault of the scammers and privacy-invaders in question.
- zepto 5y ago
  > The vast majority will continue to use the App Store. Definitely not true. Most people will be forced to install alternative stores because those stores will pay for exclusives on key apps. Players like Facebook and Google will open stores and only make their products available within them. > Apple could also manage this situation to both educate users and frame the situation in such a way so that only power users would leave the safety of the App Store to seek out sideloading or alternative stores. Not true. If Apple is forced to allow alternative store, anti-trust regulators will prevent Apple from portraying their own store as safer or from framing the situation. > The dichotomy of walled garden vs. the Wild West is a false one and a failure of imagination that ignores the possibility of a middle ground. If you believe Apple can truly build a good walled garden, you can also believe that Apple can lift restrictions and allow third party stores in a sensible, well-managed way without sacrificing product quality. Not true. Apple obviously cannot manage the behavior of third parties who they are forced to allow to build stores. > It will be the fault of those who prevented Apple from offering a curated environment. > Actually, it would be the fault of the scammers and privacy-invaders in question. Clearly false. We know the scammers and privacy invaders will act, but are currently limited in their ability to do so. Forcing Apple to reduce protections will be the proximate cause of their customers being vulnerable.
  - Apocryphon 5y ago
    > Definitely not true. Most people will be forced to install alternative stores because those stores will pay for exclusives on key apps. Players like Facebook and Google will open stores and only make their products available within them. That is debatable, and discussed throughout this thread, including in my own comments: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26799453 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26799453 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26799283 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26799283 Furthermore, there is clear evidence that what you are describing is not inevitable. Most Android users use the Google Play Store. Most MacOS users use the Mac App Store, and if they get their apps from elsewhere, it is not from competing app stores, unless you include game stores such as Steam or those run by Epic/EA/UbiSoft. Facebook does not run their own separate Android app store, even though they could. Amazon has one, largely to service their own unique Android Kindle devices, and they are not popular outside of them, nor do they have exclusivity over Amazon apps. Your doomsday scenario of myriads of exclusive app stores flies in the face of both existing trends, and market dynamics. As pointed out elsewhere, network effects prevents everyone from starting their own app store; users do not want to deal with dozens of accounts, and will just use Apple's built-in apps if you present too high a bar to getting your own. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26799335 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26799335 > Not true. If Apple is forced to allow alternative store, anti-trust regulators will prevent Apple from portraying their own store as safer or from framing the situation. Antitrust regulators have down little so far, making your fear-mongering claim even more dubious. Additionally, Apple is a master of dark patterns and social engineering, and can easily convey the safety of the App Store without stooping to heavy-handedness that would trigger regulators. > Not true. Apple obviously cannot manage the behavior of third parties who they are forced to allow to build stores. I find your lack of faith in Apple to be most disturbing. It's easily imaginable for Apple to re-frame the entire game so that they are the ones who are encouraging third parties to build stores, using official Apple App Store SDKs/APIs that come with Apple security standards built in. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26797189 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26797189 > Clearly false. We know the scammers and privacy invaders will act, but are currently limited in their ability to do so. You are refusing to acknowledge that when someone is scammed, the scammer is the one who holds the greatest fault for doing so. By doing so, you are passing the buck up the the responsibility chain. And, clearly not enough, as the OP demonstrates. Apple's App Store enforcement standards have been slipping compared to previous years. Its clear that scammers are far less limited than back when Apple was more diligent at stopping malicious apps from being on their own platform. > Forcing Apple to reduce protections will be the proximate cause of their customers being vulnerable. No one is forcing Apple to host scammy apps on their own platform. And you seem to be the only one who believes that Apple cannot extend protections even to hypothetical Apple-powered third party app stores. At the end of the day, they control the operating system. They would always have ultimate control. Finally, the original statement you are responding to is talking about the possibility of third party app stores that are more secure than the Apple App Store. Given the App Store's huge size and apparently slipping safety standards, it's certainly possible for new entrants to provide competition and offer an even better curated and secure experience than the one Apple provides. By preventing Apple from allowing the creation of such third party app stores, you are in effect the one forcing Apple to reduce protections, making their customers vulnerable.