6 ms·

So if you personally won't benefit from it you should not be against someone else benefiting right? If you want to buy Cyberpunk 2077 you have the option of at

So if you personally won't benefit from it you should not be against someone else benefiting right? If you want to buy Cyberpunk 2077 you have the option of at least 3 stores, I did not see any Steam user getting damaged by the fact the game is on other stores too.

ericmay 6y ago
As the topic has been beat to death a million times, the danger is that adding additional app stores will result in decreases in the exact thing the OP likes the App Store for. All of the hard work fighting for privacy, security, etc., goes out the window. Facebook will put their app on a 3rd party store and now we’re back to them and others abusing privacy and tracking users and not sharing what and how they’re tracking. Apple’s benevolent dictator approach has revealed some nasty stuff these companies and others were doing. With a third party app, companies don’t have to tell me how they are using my data or give me an anonymous sign in option. Naturally they’re fighting back. The App Store gives Apple a way to collectively bargain against app makers on behalf of users. Take that away and we lose what little power we have.
- simonh 6y ago
  Exactly, I like the fact that if Facebook want to be on my phone they have to meet Apple's security and privacy standards. That directly benefits me, and it's one of the reasons I buy iPhones. Forcing Apple to change their product to allow side loading and alternative stores takes that away from me.
  - d1sxeyes 6y ago
    The question really is do you think that it's fair to expect app developers to meet the criteria and then pay the Apple tax? To be clear, I'm not decided on my opinion yet, I can see merits on both sides of the argument.
    - simion314 6y ago
      Maybe we need to consider users, they are the larger number of victims. Should information be hidden from them? Should the user not decide if the wants to be tracked? Should the user not be allowed to donate to a developer without giving Apple a big cut?
  - simion314 6y ago
    The standards could be in the SDK and the sandbox. Like you don't allow location data or access to photos to any apo (not even Apple ones). So even if I sideload an app or start a Apple app I should get same prompts("Do you want to let this app ignore your firewall rules? This might be insecure The app dev is "Facebook/Apple/Unkown) . And if Apple does not like Facebook tracking people maybe they should lobby for anti-tracking laws. They should also not allow lootboxes, gems or other gaming related shit (to be consistent with their puritanical PR spin)
    - briandear 6y ago
      Why does there need to be anti-tracking laws? What if some people want to be tracked in exchange for a cheaper product? Apple allows people that value that to buy that.
      - simion314 6y ago
        The laws will be against hidden tracking, you can track but you need to be transparent about it and if you misuse the tracking you should pay.
    - simondotau 6y ago
      You are eliding the distinction between rules that can be enforced by the API and rules that can only be enforced by pronouncement. Anyone can do the former. I buy an iPhone because Apple does a decent job of the latter. Now of course if Apple is forced to permit third party stores, they’re going to be forced to make it really easy to get on these stores. Epic, Google and Amazon are going to make sure of that. So this isn’t going to be like obscure alt stores on Android that the nerdiest 2% tinker with, it’s going to be a shitshow. If Google then makes Google Maps and Gmail exclusive for the iOS Play Store, all bets are off and the biggest reason why I prefer the iPhone is destroyed. And I will be sad and angry that other people wilfully supported its destruction.
      - simion314 6y ago
        >If Google then makes Google Maps and Gmail exclusive for the iOS Play Store, all bets are off and the biggest reason why I prefer the iPhone is destroyed. And I will be sad and angry that other people wilfully supported its destruction. So is fine if Apple does not put iMessages on other stores or let open source people to create a bridge to talk with iMessages. If there are many people like you say 50% that won't unlock the phone then Google and FB will put their apps on all stores because there are more users. But if you are just 1% then it is fair that the 99% should not suffer because you want unfair stuff because it advantages you.
- ericwooley 6y ago
  You can sideload on Android and yet there are stories all the time about Google removing some app and destroying some ones whole business. It's false to say that multiple avenues for app installation destroys apples leverage over app makers. The tyranny of the default is very real. Facebook is not about to move to the epic store so it can violate your privacy more. Besides, there doesn't need to necessarily be a competing store. Even the ability to install from a website would be enough IMO. Apple can put up a scary message before you install a non app store app, and epic can side load their app. If you want the benefit of the app store, you can pay the 30%. I suspect most developers would. Additionally, you still have to get your app signed through apples developer program, so if they revoke your certificate, they could still destroy you. And I think we can let go of the idea that apple curates it's apps for safety and security. It's been shown repeatedly that they let scams through all the time, while scrutinizing and removing apps over tiny mistakes around phrasing of payment.
  - ericmay 6y ago
    > It's false to say that multiple avenues for app installation destroys apples leverage over app makers. Sorry, I just completely disagree. Google's Play Store or w/e it is on Android is the fox in the hen house. Google is one of the offenders that Apple is making disclose data collection practices! I don't think they situation is exactly comparable and it's different enough that the prior precedent may not be applicable. > Apple can put up a scary message before you install a non app store app, and epic can side load their app. Yea until that becomes anti-competitive. Besides, that makes the user experience bad. Why do any of this at all? If you're sophisticated enough to want to side load apps, you're sophisticated enough to jailbreak your iPhone and get what you want. I can already see it. You see some app in the App Store - you download it thinking it's an app but it's just a message: "Want to download our app? Go to our website!". Then I get all these pop-up warnings, download some malware on accident, whatever. IMO (and I'll vote with my dollars at least) it's just a dumb experiment to run. I see 0 benefit in doing any of this. 0. > It's been shown repeatedly that they let scams through all the time Failures like this aren't indicative of overall policy so I don't really see the point here. (also hey there fellow Eric :) )
    - 6y ago
- simion314 6y ago
  This is FUD. iOS will have the sandbox, if some shitty app ask "Do you want me to open the microphone now?" the user can still say NO, if the app asks "Please give me access to location!" the user can still say No, or Apple could even be clever and offer the user the ability to give fake location data, From your point of view iOS users are so stupid that they shold not be allowed to use a OSX device or a browser(not sure if you know but browsers ahve access to camera, , location if the user allows it so go unsintall your browser (I think you don't have the freedom to remove it , sorry for you)).
  - ericmay 6y ago
    Idk what FUD means. But long story short, I like things as they are and don't want them to change. If developers don't like that they can kick rocks. I'd rather have no apps and no App Store than to see things change, frankly. > From your point of view iOS users are so stupid that they No.. that's not my point of view or relevant at all to anything I wrote. > shold not be allowed to use a OSX device or a browser Well, judging by all the requests I get to fix things on computers versus iPhones... > not sure if you know but browsers ahve access to camera Yes you have to give the browser permission.
    - simion314 6y ago
      FUD = fear , uncertainty and doubt. >But long story short, I like things as they are and don't want them to change. If developers don't like that they can kick rocks. I'd rather have no apps and no App Store than to see things change, frankly. Who would force you to change? you could buy the US iPhone version with the diamond handcuffs. >Well, judging by all the requests I get to fix things on computers versus iPhones... Then good job to Apple PR and fanboys, the stories about Apple malware and viruses were burried very deep. >Yes you have to give the browser permission. So why this model will not work if you sideload an app? Do you need genius to check the menus of the app so you feel secure?
      - ericmay 6y ago
        > Who would force you to change? you could buy the US iPhone version with the diamond handcuffs. I'm not sure how up to speed you are with the current state of the discussion around this topic, but the gist of it is that if you make changes to the App Store, then Apple's work with respect to privacy, security, etc. go out the window because major apps that want to abuse these things will move to third party app stores. Apple loses the ability to collectively bargain on behalf of users. So, making the change almost surely will result in "forcing me to change". Maybe it won't, but I don't see a point in running that experiment. > Then good job to Apple PR and fanboys, the stories about Apple malware and viruses were burried very deep. Yea maybe they are. My own experience - nobody has ever had a problem with their iPhone. But PCs or even Macs? Yea I've had to do work. Almost always it's downloading and installing some thing they shouldn't have. > So why this model will not work if you sideload an app? Do you need genius to check the menus of the app so you feel secure? If you don't like iPhone and Apple so much why not just not use the products? I don't get this desire to change things that other people are quite happy with.
simonh 6y ago
Is the App Store really an obstacle to apps getting on the iOS platform? Is it artificially raising prices? That's what matters from a consumer interests perspective, are they losing out or are they getting ripped off. If the answer is no, there's no case to answer. The reason for companies to exist and develop and sell products isn't to benefit their competitors.
- eyesee 6y ago
  If anything I think the App Store has helped to drive the purchase price of software to $0. This in turn has driven every software vendor to either a subscription pricing model or a (privacy-invasive) ad model. Open question on if this is net beneficial to consumers or developers, but it could also be considered an economic inevitability when MC = MR = 0.
  - simion314 6y ago
    I think maybe the ads helped this more, and what helped that is probably some ad library the developer can drop in the application. What kind of free apps are there ? 1 some open source software that is compatible with iOS store license 2 trials or apps with pay to unlock stuff 3 free with ads So IMO even if you have 3 stores this will not change. But you could get finally GPL software and apps/games that target adults.
- thayne 6y ago
  > Is the App Store really an obstacle to apps getting on the iOS platform? Yes. A tremendous amount of effort goes into playing the game of guessing what you need to do to pass the approval process. And I don't mean things like tracking. I mean things like removing any links to your website, because users could buy a subscription there instead of on through the app. > Is it artificially raising prices? Absolutely. That 30% has to come from somewhere. And since you aren't allowed to charge more for an app purchase than a subscription online, that means it raises the price for everyone. Not just people who use the app.

ericmay 6y ago

As the topic has been beat to death a million times, the danger is that adding additional app stores will result in decreases in the exact thing the OP likes the App Store for. All of the hard work fighting for privacy, security, etc., goes out the window. Facebook will put their app on a 3rd party store and now we’re back to them and others abusing privacy and tracking users and not sharing what and how they’re tracking. Apple’s benevolent dictator approach has revealed some nasty stuff these companies and others were doing. With a third party app, companies don’t have to tell me how they are using my data or give me an anonymous sign in option. Naturally they’re fighting back. The App Store gives Apple a way to collectively bargain against app makers on behalf of users. Take that away and we lose what little power we have.

simonh 6y ago
Exactly, I like the fact that if Facebook want to be on my phone they have to meet Apple's security and privacy standards. That directly benefits me, and it's one of the reasons I buy iPhones. Forcing Apple to change their product to allow side loading and alternative stores takes that away from me.
- d1sxeyes 6y ago
  The question really is do you think that it's fair to expect app developers to meet the criteria and then pay the Apple tax? To be clear, I'm not decided on my opinion yet, I can see merits on both sides of the argument.
  - simion314 6y ago
    Maybe we need to consider users, they are the larger number of victims. Should information be hidden from them? Should the user not decide if the wants to be tracked? Should the user not be allowed to donate to a developer without giving Apple a big cut?
- simion314 6y ago
  The standards could be in the SDK and the sandbox. Like you don't allow location data or access to photos to any apo (not even Apple ones). So even if I sideload an app or start a Apple app I should get same prompts("Do you want to let this app ignore your firewall rules? This might be insecure The app dev is "Facebook/Apple/Unkown) . And if Apple does not like Facebook tracking people maybe they should lobby for anti-tracking laws. They should also not allow lootboxes, gems or other gaming related shit (to be consistent with their puritanical PR spin)
  - briandear 6y ago
    Why does there need to be anti-tracking laws? What if some people want to be tracked in exchange for a cheaper product? Apple allows people that value that to buy that.
    - simion314 6y ago
      The laws will be against hidden tracking, you can track but you need to be transparent about it and if you misuse the tracking you should pay.
  - simondotau 6y ago
    You are eliding the distinction between rules that can be enforced by the API and rules that can only be enforced by pronouncement. Anyone can do the former. I buy an iPhone because Apple does a decent job of the latter. Now of course if Apple is forced to permit third party stores, they’re going to be forced to make it really easy to get on these stores. Epic, Google and Amazon are going to make sure of that. So this isn’t going to be like obscure alt stores on Android that the nerdiest 2% tinker with, it’s going to be a shitshow. If Google then makes Google Maps and Gmail exclusive for the iOS Play Store, all bets are off and the biggest reason why I prefer the iPhone is destroyed. And I will be sad and angry that other people wilfully supported its destruction.
    - simion314 6y ago
      >If Google then makes Google Maps and Gmail exclusive for the iOS Play Store, all bets are off and the biggest reason why I prefer the iPhone is destroyed. And I will be sad and angry that other people wilfully supported its destruction. So is fine if Apple does not put iMessages on other stores or let open source people to create a bridge to talk with iMessages. If there are many people like you say 50% that won't unlock the phone then Google and FB will put their apps on all stores because there are more users. But if you are just 1% then it is fair that the 99% should not suffer because you want unfair stuff because it advantages you.
ericwooley 6y ago
You can sideload on Android and yet there are stories all the time about Google removing some app and destroying some ones whole business. It's false to say that multiple avenues for app installation destroys apples leverage over app makers. The tyranny of the default is very real. Facebook is not about to move to the epic store so it can violate your privacy more. Besides, there doesn't need to necessarily be a competing store. Even the ability to install from a website would be enough IMO. Apple can put up a scary message before you install a non app store app, and epic can side load their app. If you want the benefit of the app store, you can pay the 30%. I suspect most developers would. Additionally, you still have to get your app signed through apples developer program, so if they revoke your certificate, they could still destroy you. And I think we can let go of the idea that apple curates it's apps for safety and security. It's been shown repeatedly that they let scams through all the time, while scrutinizing and removing apps over tiny mistakes around phrasing of payment.
- ericmay 6y ago
  > It's false to say that multiple avenues for app installation destroys apples leverage over app makers. Sorry, I just completely disagree. Google's Play Store or w/e it is on Android is the fox in the hen house. Google is one of the offenders that Apple is making disclose data collection practices! I don't think they situation is exactly comparable and it's different enough that the prior precedent may not be applicable. > Apple can put up a scary message before you install a non app store app, and epic can side load their app. Yea until that becomes anti-competitive. Besides, that makes the user experience bad. Why do any of this at all? If you're sophisticated enough to want to side load apps, you're sophisticated enough to jailbreak your iPhone and get what you want. I can already see it. You see some app in the App Store - you download it thinking it's an app but it's just a message: "Want to download our app? Go to our website!". Then I get all these pop-up warnings, download some malware on accident, whatever. IMO (and I'll vote with my dollars at least) it's just a dumb experiment to run. I see 0 benefit in doing any of this. 0. > It's been shown repeatedly that they let scams through all the time Failures like this aren't indicative of overall policy so I don't really see the point here. (also hey there fellow Eric :) )
  - 6y ago
simion314 6y ago
This is FUD. iOS will have the sandbox, if some shitty app ask "Do you want me to open the microphone now?" the user can still say NO, if the app asks "Please give me access to location!" the user can still say No, or Apple could even be clever and offer the user the ability to give fake location data, From your point of view iOS users are so stupid that they shold not be allowed to use a OSX device or a browser(not sure if you know but browsers ahve access to camera, , location if the user allows it so go unsintall your browser (I think you don't have the freedom to remove it , sorry for you)).
- ericmay 6y ago
  Idk what FUD means. But long story short, I like things as they are and don't want them to change. If developers don't like that they can kick rocks. I'd rather have no apps and no App Store than to see things change, frankly. > From your point of view iOS users are so stupid that they No.. that's not my point of view or relevant at all to anything I wrote. > shold not be allowed to use a OSX device or a browser Well, judging by all the requests I get to fix things on computers versus iPhones... > not sure if you know but browsers ahve access to camera Yes you have to give the browser permission.
  - simion314 6y ago
    FUD = fear , uncertainty and doubt. >But long story short, I like things as they are and don't want them to change. If developers don't like that they can kick rocks. I'd rather have no apps and no App Store than to see things change, frankly. Who would force you to change? you could buy the US iPhone version with the diamond handcuffs. >Well, judging by all the requests I get to fix things on computers versus iPhones... Then good job to Apple PR and fanboys, the stories about Apple malware and viruses were burried very deep. >Yes you have to give the browser permission. So why this model will not work if you sideload an app? Do you need genius to check the menus of the app so you feel secure?
    - ericmay 6y ago
      > Who would force you to change? you could buy the US iPhone version with the diamond handcuffs. I'm not sure how up to speed you are with the current state of the discussion around this topic, but the gist of it is that if you make changes to the App Store, then Apple's work with respect to privacy, security, etc. go out the window because major apps that want to abuse these things will move to third party app stores. Apple loses the ability to collectively bargain on behalf of users. So, making the change almost surely will result in "forcing me to change". Maybe it won't, but I don't see a point in running that experiment. > Then good job to Apple PR and fanboys, the stories about Apple malware and viruses were burried very deep. Yea maybe they are. My own experience - nobody has ever had a problem with their iPhone. But PCs or even Macs? Yea I've had to do work. Almost always it's downloading and installing some thing they shouldn't have. > So why this model will not work if you sideload an app? Do you need genius to check the menus of the app so you feel secure? If you don't like iPhone and Apple so much why not just not use the products? I don't get this desire to change things that other people are quite happy with.

simonh 6y ago

Is the App Store really an obstacle to apps getting on the iOS platform? Is it artificially raising prices? That's what matters from a consumer interests perspective, are they losing out or are they getting ripped off. If the answer is no, there's no case to answer. The reason for companies to exist and develop and sell products isn't to benefit their competitors.

eyesee 6y ago
If anything I think the App Store has helped to drive the purchase price of software to $0. This in turn has driven every software vendor to either a subscription pricing model or a (privacy-invasive) ad model. Open question on if this is net beneficial to consumers or developers, but it could also be considered an economic inevitability when MC = MR = 0.
- simion314 6y ago
  I think maybe the ads helped this more, and what helped that is probably some ad library the developer can drop in the application. What kind of free apps are there ? 1 some open source software that is compatible with iOS store license 2 trials or apps with pay to unlock stuff 3 free with ads So IMO even if you have 3 stores this will not change. But you could get finally GPL software and apps/games that target adults.
thayne 6y ago
> Is the App Store really an obstacle to apps getting on the iOS platform? Yes. A tremendous amount of effort goes into playing the game of guessing what you need to do to pass the approval process. And I don't mean things like tracking. I mean things like removing any links to your website, because users could buy a subscription there instead of on through the app. > Is it artificially raising prices? Absolutely. That 30% has to come from somewhere. And since you aren't allowed to charge more for an app purchase than a subscription online, that means it raises the price for everyone. Not just people who use the app.