13 ms·

I recently had a change of heart on this issue when the prevalence of fraudulent apps on the App Store was documented[1]. It's hard to argue that Apple is provi

I recently had a change of heart on this issue when the prevalence of fraudulent apps on the App Store was documented[1]. It's hard to argue that Apple is providing significant benefit to either consumers or developers for their 30% cut when they seem incapable of reigning in obvious fraud. In addition, I think Apple pushing subscriptions as a solution for long term app funding (instead of upgrade pricing or other options) has resulted in apps as simple as text editors or todo apps needlessly becoming subscription services. Apple didn't invent SaaS, but they sure did popularize it for consumer-facing apps. Overall, Apple has not been a good steward of the App Store. [1] https://9to5mac.com/2021/02/11/app-store-scam-apps-how-to-spot/ https://9to5mac.com/2021/02/11/app-store-scam-apps-how-to-sp...

egocentric 6y ago
Thank you for being open-minded. Since the article you posted, I’ve uncovered a lot more about the prevalence of fraudulent apps on the App Store: https://www.theverge.com/2021/4/21/22385859/apple-app-store-scams-fraud-review-enforcement-top-grossing-kosta-eleftheriou https://www.theverge.com/2021/4/21/22385859/apple-app-store-...
joshstrange 6y ago
> has resulted in apps as simple as text editors or todo apps needlessly becoming subscription services I'm torn on this. Of course I prefer to pay once for software but that's not really realistic in today's world where iOS (or Android) development is rarely "Write once, post online, walk away". It's an ongoing process and there aren't very many apps out there that are "done" (even the big players). I understand that my Drafts subscription goes to pay the developer on an ongoing basis to support the product and add new features.
- inetknght 6y ago
  > I'm torn on this. Of course I prefer to pay once for software but that's not really realistic in today's world where iOS (or Android) development is rarely "Write once, post online, walk away". It's an ongoing process and there aren't very many apps out there that are "done" (even the big players). Why is that? The user interface hasn't significantly changed since the iPhone was launched. Why do apps need to be rewritten so many times? Why should users pay once for software and then... need to pay for the same software again in 2 years even though there's really nothing that has improved? Pay for a text editor? Why the hell wasn't a text editor well written on the first iPhone?
  - joshstrange 6y ago
    I’m sorry but your comment is completely divorced from the situation on the ground when it comes to app development. The UI has changed overtime, sometime substantially, and there is now an entirely new language (Swift) you can write your apps in as well as a new design language based on that new language (SwiftUI). On top of that, APIs change version to version of iOS and customers expect things that are now possible on newer iOS versions even if your app was written on an older version. Also, a lot of app developers work directly with their app’s communities to focus on what their users want. Drafts, Apollo, Things, Overcast, and more are apps I pay subscriptions on so that they continue to add new features and keep compatibility with new iOS releases. Have you not dealt with the annoyance of an app that hasn’t been updated for a newer OS? Or one that isn’t even providing “table stakes” to other apps in it’s category?
    - otachack 6y ago
      And new devices + resolutions! Literally in just the past 5 years we got the bigger phones, notches, etc.
      - heterodoxxed 6y ago
        And of course, backend services aren't free and they're an ongoing cost. And apps rarely exist without backend services these days. I much prefer an inexpensive subscription over ads or other approaches to revenue. Especially considering the consumer market has been sold on this idea that paying $10 for an app, even once, no matter how useful, is way too much money.
    - inetknght 6y ago
      > your comment is completely divorced from the situation on the ground when it comes to app development Perhaps it is. > The UI has changed overtime, sometime substantially, How so? I see an app in the store. I install it. An icon shows up on my screen. I tap it to open it. A window is shown where I can type text in. If I receive a phone call or text message, something is displayed on the screen to alert me to that fact. I can tap on that to be brought to the event source. Or I can ignore it. When I close the app, there's usually some way for changes to be saved (sometimes automatically). This workflow, as the user sees it, hasn't changed. > there is now an entirely new language (Swift) you can write your apps in as well as a new design language based on that new language (SwiftUI). Did that deprecate compatibility with apps written in the older language? > APIs change version to version of iOS and customers expect things that are now possible on newer iOS versions even if your app was written on an older version Like what? The context was a text editor app and todo apps. What has changed here? > Also, a lot of app developers work directly with their app’s communities to focus on what their users want. That's pretty cool. What about basic features without needing a subscription? > Have you not dealt with the annoyance of an app that hasn’t been updated for a newer OS? Or one that isn’t even providing “table stakes” to other apps in it’s category? Yup. It's almost always an app that's written in some trendy language, using some cloud feature, or some paid-for app. I use lots of free software on my laptop without that problem. Notably, text editors from 30 years ago still work fantastically. Email clients from 30 years ago still mostly work great (unless using certain popular anti-consumer cloud email providers). Games from 20 years ago are a hit or a miss. A lot of times they work just fine with an emulator. And I've already paid for all of those. Once. Why should the iPhone be any different?
paulmd 6y ago
it's all relative - no system is perfect, some bad apps do slip through the cracks. compared to Android, though? far far better, Google literally doesn't even try to police that sort of stuff, they just list it all anyway and take their cut, when this stuff comes to light Apple delists it but Google is perfectly satisfied to keep raking in their cut. That's the difference.
- echelon 6y ago
  > compared to Android, though? far far better Where's your data to support this? Both platforms host scams and malware, despite the fact that they claim operating an app store is a means of protecting consumers. Microsoft does just fine allowing downloads from the web and presenting a permissions and security screen. They even have a database of signatures for apps that get flagged. You don't see people screaming bloody murder that you can install software on your PC. We survived all this time just fine without the app store garbage. Consumer protection is a gaslighting scheme to gain control and project into other verticals and industries. It's a type of monopolism we've never seen before.
  - nodamage 6y ago
    > Where's your data to support this? Multiple mobile/security companies publish annual malware reports, for example here is Nokia's Threat Intelligence Report for 2020 (https://www.nokia.com/networks/portfolio/cyber-security/threat-intelligence-report-2020/ https://www.nokia.com/networks/portfolio/cyber-security/thre...): Figure 3 provides a breakdown of infections by device type in 2020. Among smartphones, Android devices are the most commonly targeted by malware. Android devices were responsible for 26.64% of all infections, Windows/PCs for 38.92%, IoT devices for 32.72% and only 1.72% for iPhones. I wouldn't say this is "just fine". Perhaps you (and most HN commenters) have the technical knowledge to avoid installing malware but the vast majority of people using these devices do not.
heavyset_go 6y ago
> Overall, Apple has not been a good steward of the App Store. I'd go one step further and suggest that neither Apple nor Google are good stewards of the mobile app distribution market, either.
- emptyadam 6y ago
  I'd agree.
asddubs 6y ago
interesting point i hadn't really considered, i guess the app store interface doesn't really lend itself to selling upgraded versions of your software, since you'd essentially be starting over in terms of ranking/ratings/etc every time you do that
donmcronald 6y ago
> has resulted in apps as simple as text editors or todo apps needlessly becoming subscription services On the PC I have a mail app that turned into a subscription service and there are downsides. I have a lifetime license and get all the updates because I bought it before it went subscription based. Now it feels like there’s a relentless push for more features every month to justify the subscription. Every month there’s some stupid update that does something I don’t need or want. And the subscription costs 3x what I pay for my mailbox at Zoho. Sorry, but your stupid email client isn’t worth more than what my email provider charges me. I won’t say the name because I think they’re a smaller company and they made good on all the lifetime licenses they sold afaik.
- throwaway3699 6y ago
  > And the subscription costs 3x what I pay for my mailbox at Zoho. Sorry, but your stupid email client isn’t worth more than what my email provider charges me. Niche products will always charge more than the mass-market alternative. There isn't another sustainable business model for small companies.
- salamandersauce 6y ago
  Drawboard PDF added subscription services after I bought it. Literally the only feature I wanted them to add was a lined paper template and they put that behind the subscription. Like I'm not paying monthly for that. Certainly not more than a few hundred sheets of actual lined paper cost which I would probably not use up for a few months...
indigochill 6y ago
> Overall, Apple has not been a good steward of the App Store. But the question on my mind is: what precedent are we setting by legally mandating what a corporation can do on a platform they solely built? And are we pulling up the ladder after the incumbents have climbed it? It's one thing to mandate how much pollution a factory may leak into a shared water supply. But the Apple app store is not a utility or natural resource. Apple built it from nothing and they're its sole owner. If it's a crappy experience, the solution to me still seems to be to migrate to a competitor (I'm toying with the idea of trading my Galaxy for a Librem 5). There seems to be a mentality that megacorps have to have their hand held to not be public menaces, but by doing this my fear is we fortify Goliath rather than giving David a shot to kill him. The main reason I see this hasn't happened yet is that we've let the giants get away with corporate murder (e.g. Facebook's acquisition of both Instagram and WhatsApp), not because innovation is dead. And national regulation is a pretty patchwork solution anyway to corporations that can (and sometimes do) go toe-to-toe with national governments.
- jollybean 6y ago
  "what precedent are we setting by legally mandating what a corporation can do on a platform they solely built? " They key word is 'platform'. It's designed for 'broad public consumption', this is different than other, purely internal aspects of their service. So Ford or GM cannot stop you from buying other vendors stuff and tweaking your car. The very thought would be absurd. A car is designed to be at very least maintained, they can void warranties etc. but not have absolute control. BMW is stricter about those things, which is fine, but it's still outside of their control. Finally, I think the reach of the platforms actually does matter - once something becomes a public good, we treat it differently. Imagine if the electric company in 1921 only ever let you buy appliances 'made by them' suited for 'their electricity', it's just not good. A similar situation is MS using their platform monopoly to dominate other areas, such as MS Office, which I think should have been regulated as well. Using a platform monopoly, companies can definitely dominating adjacent economies - even while providing an inferior product or experience, which is bad for everyone. To your point, it's probably worthwhile for us to start defining in legal terms what we mean by 'platform' so the rules can be applied fairly.

egocentric 6y ago

Thank you for being open-minded. Since the article you posted, I’ve uncovered a lot more about the prevalence of fraudulent apps on the App Store: https://www.theverge.com/2021/4/21/22385859/apple-app-store-scams-fraud-review-enforcement-top-grossing-kosta-eleftheriou https://www.theverge.com/2021/4/21/22385859/apple-app-store-...

joshstrange 6y ago

> has resulted in apps as simple as text editors or todo apps needlessly becoming subscription services I'm torn on this. Of course I prefer to pay once for software but that's not really realistic in today's world where iOS (or Android) development is rarely "Write once, post online, walk away". It's an ongoing process and there aren't very many apps out there that are "done" (even the big players). I understand that my Drafts subscription goes to pay the developer on an ongoing basis to support the product and add new features.

inetknght 6y ago
> I'm torn on this. Of course I prefer to pay once for software but that's not really realistic in today's world where iOS (or Android) development is rarely "Write once, post online, walk away". It's an ongoing process and there aren't very many apps out there that are "done" (even the big players). Why is that? The user interface hasn't significantly changed since the iPhone was launched. Why do apps need to be rewritten so many times? Why should users pay once for software and then... need to pay for the same software again in 2 years even though there's really nothing that has improved? Pay for a text editor? Why the hell wasn't a text editor well written on the first iPhone?
- joshstrange 6y ago
  I’m sorry but your comment is completely divorced from the situation on the ground when it comes to app development. The UI has changed overtime, sometime substantially, and there is now an entirely new language (Swift) you can write your apps in as well as a new design language based on that new language (SwiftUI). On top of that, APIs change version to version of iOS and customers expect things that are now possible on newer iOS versions even if your app was written on an older version. Also, a lot of app developers work directly with their app’s communities to focus on what their users want. Drafts, Apollo, Things, Overcast, and more are apps I pay subscriptions on so that they continue to add new features and keep compatibility with new iOS releases. Have you not dealt with the annoyance of an app that hasn’t been updated for a newer OS? Or one that isn’t even providing “table stakes” to other apps in it’s category?
  - otachack 6y ago
    And new devices + resolutions! Literally in just the past 5 years we got the bigger phones, notches, etc.
    - heterodoxxed 6y ago
      And of course, backend services aren't free and they're an ongoing cost. And apps rarely exist without backend services these days. I much prefer an inexpensive subscription over ads or other approaches to revenue. Especially considering the consumer market has been sold on this idea that paying $10 for an app, even once, no matter how useful, is way too much money.
  - inetknght 6y ago
    > your comment is completely divorced from the situation on the ground when it comes to app development Perhaps it is. > The UI has changed overtime, sometime substantially, How so? I see an app in the store. I install it. An icon shows up on my screen. I tap it to open it. A window is shown where I can type text in. If I receive a phone call or text message, something is displayed on the screen to alert me to that fact. I can tap on that to be brought to the event source. Or I can ignore it. When I close the app, there's usually some way for changes to be saved (sometimes automatically). This workflow, as the user sees it, hasn't changed. > there is now an entirely new language (Swift) you can write your apps in as well as a new design language based on that new language (SwiftUI). Did that deprecate compatibility with apps written in the older language? > APIs change version to version of iOS and customers expect things that are now possible on newer iOS versions even if your app was written on an older version Like what? The context was a text editor app and todo apps. What has changed here? > Also, a lot of app developers work directly with their app’s communities to focus on what their users want. That's pretty cool. What about basic features without needing a subscription? > Have you not dealt with the annoyance of an app that hasn’t been updated for a newer OS? Or one that isn’t even providing “table stakes” to other apps in it’s category? Yup. It's almost always an app that's written in some trendy language, using some cloud feature, or some paid-for app. I use lots of free software on my laptop without that problem. Notably, text editors from 30 years ago still work fantastically. Email clients from 30 years ago still mostly work great (unless using certain popular anti-consumer cloud email providers). Games from 20 years ago are a hit or a miss. A lot of times they work just fine with an emulator. And I've already paid for all of those. Once. Why should the iPhone be any different?

paulmd 6y ago

it's all relative - no system is perfect, some bad apps do slip through the cracks. compared to Android, though? far far better, Google literally doesn't even try to police that sort of stuff, they just list it all anyway and take their cut, when this stuff comes to light Apple delists it but Google is perfectly satisfied to keep raking in their cut. That's the difference.

echelon 6y ago
> compared to Android, though? far far better Where's your data to support this? Both platforms host scams and malware, despite the fact that they claim operating an app store is a means of protecting consumers. Microsoft does just fine allowing downloads from the web and presenting a permissions and security screen. They even have a database of signatures for apps that get flagged. You don't see people screaming bloody murder that you can install software on your PC. We survived all this time just fine without the app store garbage. Consumer protection is a gaslighting scheme to gain control and project into other verticals and industries. It's a type of monopolism we've never seen before.
- nodamage 6y ago
  > Where's your data to support this? Multiple mobile/security companies publish annual malware reports, for example here is Nokia's Threat Intelligence Report for 2020 (https://www.nokia.com/networks/portfolio/cyber-security/threat-intelligence-report-2020/ https://www.nokia.com/networks/portfolio/cyber-security/thre...): Figure 3 provides a breakdown of infections by device type in 2020. Among smartphones, Android devices are the most commonly targeted by malware. Android devices were responsible for 26.64% of all infections, Windows/PCs for 38.92%, IoT devices for 32.72% and only 1.72% for iPhones. I wouldn't say this is "just fine". Perhaps you (and most HN commenters) have the technical knowledge to avoid installing malware but the vast majority of people using these devices do not.

heavyset_go 6y ago

> Overall, Apple has not been a good steward of the App Store. I'd go one step further and suggest that neither Apple nor Google are good stewards of the mobile app distribution market, either.

emptyadam 6y ago
I'd agree.

asddubs 6y ago

interesting point i hadn't really considered, i guess the app store interface doesn't really lend itself to selling upgraded versions of your software, since you'd essentially be starting over in terms of ranking/ratings/etc every time you do that

donmcronald 6y ago

> has resulted in apps as simple as text editors or todo apps needlessly becoming subscription services On the PC I have a mail app that turned into a subscription service and there are downsides. I have a lifetime license and get all the updates because I bought it before it went subscription based. Now it feels like there’s a relentless push for more features every month to justify the subscription. Every month there’s some stupid update that does something I don’t need or want. And the subscription costs 3x what I pay for my mailbox at Zoho. Sorry, but your stupid email client isn’t worth more than what my email provider charges me. I won’t say the name because I think they’re a smaller company and they made good on all the lifetime licenses they sold afaik.

throwaway3699 6y ago
> And the subscription costs 3x what I pay for my mailbox at Zoho. Sorry, but your stupid email client isn’t worth more than what my email provider charges me. Niche products will always charge more than the mass-market alternative. There isn't another sustainable business model for small companies.
salamandersauce 6y ago
Drawboard PDF added subscription services after I bought it. Literally the only feature I wanted them to add was a lined paper template and they put that behind the subscription. Like I'm not paying monthly for that. Certainly not more than a few hundred sheets of actual lined paper cost which I would probably not use up for a few months...

indigochill 6y ago

> Overall, Apple has not been a good steward of the App Store. But the question on my mind is: what precedent are we setting by legally mandating what a corporation can do on a platform they solely built? And are we pulling up the ladder after the incumbents have climbed it? It's one thing to mandate how much pollution a factory may leak into a shared water supply. But the Apple app store is not a utility or natural resource. Apple built it from nothing and they're its sole owner. If it's a crappy experience, the solution to me still seems to be to migrate to a competitor (I'm toying with the idea of trading my Galaxy for a Librem 5). There seems to be a mentality that megacorps have to have their hand held to not be public menaces, but by doing this my fear is we fortify Goliath rather than giving David a shot to kill him. The main reason I see this hasn't happened yet is that we've let the giants get away with corporate murder (e.g. Facebook's acquisition of both Instagram and WhatsApp), not because innovation is dead. And national regulation is a pretty patchwork solution anyway to corporations that can (and sometimes do) go toe-to-toe with national governments.

jollybean 6y ago
"what precedent are we setting by legally mandating what a corporation can do on a platform they solely built? " They key word is 'platform'. It's designed for 'broad public consumption', this is different than other, purely internal aspects of their service. So Ford or GM cannot stop you from buying other vendors stuff and tweaking your car. The very thought would be absurd. A car is designed to be at very least maintained, they can void warranties etc. but not have absolute control. BMW is stricter about those things, which is fine, but it's still outside of their control. Finally, I think the reach of the platforms actually does matter - once something becomes a public good, we treat it differently. Imagine if the electric company in 1921 only ever let you buy appliances 'made by them' suited for 'their electricity', it's just not good. A similar situation is MS using their platform monopoly to dominate other areas, such as MS Office, which I think should have been regulated as well. Using a platform monopoly, companies can definitely dominating adjacent economies - even while providing an inferior product or experience, which is bad for everyone. To your point, it's probably worthwhile for us to start defining in legal terms what we mean by 'platform' so the rules can be applied fairly.