16 ms·

App Store Arguments

75 points by feross 5y ago

anupamchugh 5y ago
This is well put. My primarily concern with Apple is their lack of ability to weed out scam apps from the App Store. Thousands of dollars are burned every year only because the regular non-tech savvy isn't given the dumb transparent information about purchases.
- darkwizard42 5y ago
  I mean they must knock out a TON of bad apps and actors. I think it is pretty known that the Google Play store is much further fraught with scammy apps than Apple. A way to maybe rationalize it (not saying it is acceptable, but just the reasoning) is that we don't scrap our antivirus software because it failed to block EVERY SINGLE virus... we keep it because we know it blocks a vast majority of the problems that might affect the computer. For the point around purchases, Apple owning the App Store wholesale has led to helpful regulation of how in-app purchases work, how subscriptions can be used, how refunding policy on app purchases works. All this would likely get worse if every company pushed their app as an exclusive through their own third-party app store...
  - josephcsible 5y ago
    First of all, a lot of people have scrapped their antivirus. And second, the problems caused by antivirus false positives are way less bad than the problems caused by all the non-malicious apps Apple has rejected.
- zepto 5y ago
  > My primarily concern with Apple is their lack of ability to weed out scam apps from the App Store. Apple weeds out a huge number of scams from the app stores. Their ability to do so is enormous. Removing Apple from the equation would massively increase the number of scams.
cloogshicer 5y ago
I really wish Apple would just allow side loading. This would alleviate most concerns and would enable everyone to run any software they want on the device they bought.
- CubsFan1060 5y ago
  But Epic is suing google too.
  - heavyset_go 5y ago
    That's because Google is also engaging in anti-competitive behavior, and abuse their duopoly with Apple in the mobile app distribution market. User installable 3rd party mobile app stores cannot implement automatic upgrades, background installation of apps, or batch installs of apps like the Play Store can. These limitations are designed by Google and are implemented in Android. If the user tries to install an app on their own, they're shown scary warnings and must adjust arcane settings, but if they use Google's Play Store, no scary warnings are shown and no settings need to be adjusted. They're told they're "protected" by Play Protect, but aren't shown scary warnings about the fact that the Play Store is the main distribution method for malware on Android[1] when they go to install apps with it. The Play Store isn't alone in being a vector for malware, as Apple's App Store is responsible for nearly half of a billion malware installs of just XcodeGhost alone[2]. Like Apple, Google also mandates that apps distributed via the Play Store must use Google's payment system[3], and give Google a 15% to 30% cut of revenue: > Developers charging for apps and downloads from Google Play must use Google Play's billing system as the method of payment. [1] https://www.zdnet.com/article/play-store-identified-as-main-distribution-vector-for-most-android-malware/ https://www.zdnet.com/article/play-store-identified-as-main-... [2] https://www.vice.com/en/article/n7bbmz/the-fortnite-trial-is-exposing-details-about-the-biggest-iphone-hack-of-all-time https://www.vice.com/en/article/n7bbmz/the-fortnite-trial-is... [3] https://support.google.com/googleplay/android-developer/answer/9858738?hl=en https://support.google.com/googleplay/android-developer/answ...
  - paxys 5y ago
    That one is because Google forced OnePlus and LG to back out of their deal with Epic to preload the non Play Store version of Fortnite on their devices by default – https://www.theverge.com/2020/8/13/21368395/fortnite-epic-games-oneplus-deal-google-play-store-lawsuit-lg https://www.theverge.com/2020/8/13/21368395/fortnite-epic-ga...
easton 5y ago
The IP argument seems a bit hollow to me, since Apple would've had to build probably upwards of 70% of the API surface for iOS just for their internal apps (and when they launched the iPhone SDK, they repeatedly pushed that developers were using the same tools they used to build the core apps). And even if that is true, the total cost of development of iOS is probably paid for by the sale of the devices. The phone is nothing without a way for someone to write software for it, whether it's Apple or a third-party. I wonder how long until Apple finds the people who made the "you wouldn't steal a car" advertisement for the MPAA and gets them to make "you wouldn't offer your own payment method for digital goods".
- Despegar 5y ago
  >The IP argument seems a bit hollow to me, since Apple would've had to build probably upwards of 70% of the API surface for iOS just for their internal apps (and when they launched the iPhone SDK, they repeatedly pushed that developers were using the same tools they used to build the core apps). Does Amazon build separate warehouses for third-party goods? All you're saying is that software is a good business, which everyone already knows.
- enos_feedler 5y ago
  Even if it was 70%, it is hard to put a price on the additional 30%. As an example lets look at the Camera API. It is possible do full encoding at high resolution of two independent sensors recording simultaneously (front + back camera for instance). There is no 1st party functionality that uses this. This requires a combination of hardware (media + sensor chips), OS, API, testing, docs, etc, that is built for 3P. This is just 1 example. It is hard to argue that Apple is not investing a fair share of the 30% platform fees back into the platform itself (hardware, software and services).
paxys 5y ago
Regardless of the outcome, it is clear that the trial (and the inevitable appeals) is going to leave its mark on the future of app stores and digital distribution. What started as a dispute over a random game turned into possibly the highest profile lawsuit Apple has had to fight. They made Tim Cook take the stand for the first time in his life. A lot of damaging PR was unearthed. Apple and others have already announced concessions for developers in the last few months (like cutting the rate to 15% for the first $1M in revenue, followed closely by Google who did the same). Antitrust investigations in the EU and other jurisdictions are picking up steam. This saga is far from over.
- Dracophoenix 5y ago
  It seems that this saga goes far beyond Apple. The bigger question this will probably lead to is to what extent operating systems/platforms/intellectual property fully belong to a person or entity. How much of it should be "shared" if at all? This will affect game consoles, ATMs, automobiles, and anything with an electronic circuit. It's a property rights conundrum fit for the 21st century.
  - enos_feedler 5y ago
    Ben argues that even the Apple question is murky enough to make it impractical for regulation to step in. Expanding the question only muddies the waters even more. For any actual change to occur the underlying issue needs more focus and clarity. I would say follow the email trails and focus more specifically on Spotify, iBooks and conflict of interest
    - halostatue 5y ago
      It’s impractical for the courts to regulate. Congress can pass laws about this sort of behaviour if they wish.
      - Dracophoenix 5y ago
        I doubt it's within Congress's ability or capability. In addition to property rights, this case also involves freedom of speech and association. Congress can't make any laws abridging Apple's freedoms at the expense of the consumer's/developer's or vice versa. The courts don't exist to regulate, they exist to interpret their impartial findings on the basis of current law. What's needed is an answer to these questions and there's no better place to do it than in the courts.
nxc18 5y ago
I love my iPhone and solidly side with Apple in this case, and have ditched Spotify due to their spiteful position. Fuck Epic. Still, I totally agree with this: > What I wish would happen — and yes, I know this is naive and stupid and probably fruitless — is that Apple would just give the slightest bit of ground. They could have bought a lot of good will if they just changed their fee model slightly for subscription and purchasing apps. It is totally reasonable to require that app subscriptions are done in store, but for services like Spotify, Kindle, etc, there should be options to buy in app. Apple could even require that they process transactions, but just not take a cut. App store-based subcriptions add a lot of value, enough to justify a small premium. As a consumer, I like having one place to go to cancel my subscriptions. I don’t have to worry about being tricked into an auto-renewal. I don’t see a problem getting rid of anti-steering if the fee is reduced; my time is valuable enough that I’m not going to jump through hoops to save 10%, and I suspect that is true for much of Apple’s customers (I’m told day after day that iPhones are just for rich, elitist people, despite TCO often being lower than Android).
- simion314 5y ago
  I think Apple could done something like " any application that has payments should offer an Apple Pay option" but not force prices for outside the store or other payment methods or only Apple pay. With this scheme Apple Pay fans can use it for everything.
  - vineyardmike 5y ago
    Besides the profit apple makes, there are other reasons they require apple pay... my partner used to work as an apple care agent and tons of people would call in saying apple apps took their money (but they were actually just random 3rd parties from app store). Apple is able to give them their money back. These callers can't distinguish between apple and a third party app. Sometimes even from big names like uber or facebook. Apple is doing what they can to uphold their reputation (and yes, profit).
    - simion314 5y ago
jbverschoor 5y ago
> In this world you don’t need 1,000 true fans to make a living; you need 1,786 — 536 fans to pay Apple, 253 fans to pay Twitter, and only then the 1,000 that make it possible to create something new. It is inevitable that some number of businesses never get started, because of this deadweight loss. So when is Epic going to sue the federal and state tax organizations? They're taking in some case up to 50% (VAT + corporate tax)
- smoldesu 5y ago
  Governments can't feasibly sustain themselves without taxation. Apple already drives industry-leading profit margins on their hardware side, so nobody's really fooled when the largest company in the world complains about how hard it is to turn a buck.
- kbelder 5y ago
  The correct takeaway is that, without the government, you'd need about 500 fans.
ksec 5y ago
I have the similar wish and opinion as Ben Thompson. ( But somehow unpopular on HN ) >And, for what it’s worth, continue controlling games: I do think the App Store is a safer model, particularly for kids, and the fact of the matter is that consoles have the same rules. Move Games away from App Store to Game Store. Keep those 30% cut. This way Apple have just protected ~90% of their App Store revenue. Like Ben have said, this is similar to console. >Let developers own their apps, including telling users about their websites, and let creatives build relationships with their fans instead of intermediating everything. Not just "creatives", but business to built relationship with their customers. Most people will still definitely sign up through Apple ID simply due to protection and simplicity. Collect flat 10% commission on digital goods with no exemption. And App Store should approve apps as long as they are legal, fit the quality of apps in both UI and security requirement. Not because of its political speeches. Finally Subscription Scams. Something needs to be done. I have a few solutions in my head but all of them have major drawbacks.
- vineyardmike 5y ago
  > Not because of its political speeches. Not aware of apple banning anything due to politics (beyond international politics like china). If you're discussing parler they claim its due to not being moderated (or adequately). This seems like a somewhat reasonable requirement.
makecheck 5y ago
Too much credit is given to the concept of “just using another phone”, whether it is for a user or a developer. As a user, no way I would just toss aside years of app purchases and past experiences on one platform to suddenly decide to switch. Sure, some people do but generally they don’t. Switching cost applies to lots of things, not just phones, yet the inability of app stores to transfer proof of purchase makes this cost higher than it would normally be. As a developer, like it or not you will depend on some (usually large) percentage of APIs available only on your first chosen platform. Probably even the programming language! And for the most unfortunate of businesses, a ton of this effort will be spent up front before even knowing if some new idea for an app will be denied entry to the App Store due to some unwritten rule (or worse, denied a few years in as the rules shift). If you reach the conclusion that you picked the wrong first platform, most developers are not “free” to “just” pick another phone/platform and make it all work out before going broke.
- withinboredom 5y ago
  I had some success reaching out to android devs for a voucher on iOS when I switched. My success was mostly limited to finding contact information. When I did, a few answered with a voucher. Most didn’t reply.
- karimmaassen 5y ago
  Kinda agree. I as an iPhone user, am completely aware of the fact I'm not only buying "just a device" but I committed myself to an ecosystem. And I did so, quite willingly as I place my trust in Apple and how they control and guard the quality and safety of the software that I can put on my iPhone. Now I can understand the sentiment of "free choice". But we're not talking about public utilities here. These are all commercial products provided to us by private companies. The choice we have is to not accept the offer as a whole. The market has spoken however and it seems we - the general public - are ok with how Apple runs their company.
asimpletune 5y ago
> What I wish would happen — and yes, I know this is naive and stupid and probably fruitless — is that Apple would just give the slightest bit of ground. Does anyone know if there's a strategic legal reason Apple hasn't done this (beyond the small developer program)? Like, imagine tomorrow they give ground. What op-eds would I read in the WSJ about how they've exposed themselves x, y, z problems? I mean this in the legal sense, not the obvious, usual slippery slope. One thing that really struck me in this article was Phil Schiller's email about sort of capping the rule after Apple takes in $1B in profit. I thought that was a very sweet and kind thing to suggest. Maybe the number is wrong, maybe the motivation is wrong, but I do like the spirit of this. Basically, "fair" is hard to define. As stated in the article, literally everyone has good points. In cases like this, when fair in some kind of algebraic sense is impossible, maybe the easiest and best way to approach it is to say "fair is when everyone is more or less ok". Maybe that's the case now, maybe that's the sentiment that Phil was putting fourth. I wonder what that version of "fair" would like like today? Or maybe that's exactly what the small developer program is. Like, you don't have to pay that much unless you're making $1M or more. I know I would be very happy as a developer to have an app like this, and anything beyond that I'd probably be totally sucked into a money crazed world anyway, and probably miserable.

75 points by feross 5y ago

This is well put. My primarily concern with Apple is their lack of ability to weed out scam apps from the App Store. Thousands of dollars are burned every year only because the regular non-tech savvy isn't given the dumb transparent information about purchases.

darkwizard42 5y ago
I mean they must knock out a TON of bad apps and actors. I think it is pretty known that the Google Play store is much further fraught with scammy apps than Apple. A way to maybe rationalize it (not saying it is acceptable, but just the reasoning) is that we don't scrap our antivirus software because it failed to block EVERY SINGLE virus... we keep it because we know it blocks a vast majority of the problems that might affect the computer. For the point around purchases, Apple owning the App Store wholesale has led to helpful regulation of how in-app purchases work, how subscriptions can be used, how refunding policy on app purchases works. All this would likely get worse if every company pushed their app as an exclusive through their own third-party app store...
- josephcsible 5y ago
  First of all, a lot of people have scrapped their antivirus. And second, the problems caused by antivirus false positives are way less bad than the problems caused by all the non-malicious apps Apple has rejected.
zepto 5y ago
> My primarily concern with Apple is their lack of ability to weed out scam apps from the App Store. Apple weeds out a huge number of scams from the app stores. Their ability to do so is enormous. Removing Apple from the equation would massively increase the number of scams.

cloogshicer 5y ago

I really wish Apple would just allow side loading. This would alleviate most concerns and would enable everyone to run any software they want on the device they bought.

CubsFan1060 5y ago
But Epic is suing google too.
- heavyset_go 5y ago
  That's because Google is also engaging in anti-competitive behavior, and abuse their duopoly with Apple in the mobile app distribution market. User installable 3rd party mobile app stores cannot implement automatic upgrades, background installation of apps, or batch installs of apps like the Play Store can. These limitations are designed by Google and are implemented in Android. If the user tries to install an app on their own, they're shown scary warnings and must adjust arcane settings, but if they use Google's Play Store, no scary warnings are shown and no settings need to be adjusted. They're told they're "protected" by Play Protect, but aren't shown scary warnings about the fact that the Play Store is the main distribution method for malware on Android[1] when they go to install apps with it. The Play Store isn't alone in being a vector for malware, as Apple's App Store is responsible for nearly half of a billion malware installs of just XcodeGhost alone[2]. Like Apple, Google also mandates that apps distributed via the Play Store must use Google's payment system[3], and give Google a 15% to 30% cut of revenue: > Developers charging for apps and downloads from Google Play must use Google Play's billing system as the method of payment. [1] https://www.zdnet.com/article/play-store-identified-as-main-distribution-vector-for-most-android-malware/ https://www.zdnet.com/article/play-store-identified-as-main-... [2] https://www.vice.com/en/article/n7bbmz/the-fortnite-trial-is-exposing-details-about-the-biggest-iphone-hack-of-all-time https://www.vice.com/en/article/n7bbmz/the-fortnite-trial-is... [3] https://support.google.com/googleplay/android-developer/answer/9858738?hl=en https://support.google.com/googleplay/android-developer/answ...
- paxys 5y ago
  That one is because Google forced OnePlus and LG to back out of their deal with Epic to preload the non Play Store version of Fortnite on their devices by default – https://www.theverge.com/2020/8/13/21368395/fortnite-epic-games-oneplus-deal-google-play-store-lawsuit-lg https://www.theverge.com/2020/8/13/21368395/fortnite-epic-ga...

easton 5y ago

The IP argument seems a bit hollow to me, since Apple would've had to build probably upwards of 70% of the API surface for iOS just for their internal apps (and when they launched the iPhone SDK, they repeatedly pushed that developers were using the same tools they used to build the core apps). And even if that is true, the total cost of development of iOS is probably paid for by the sale of the devices. The phone is nothing without a way for someone to write software for it, whether it's Apple or a third-party. I wonder how long until Apple finds the people who made the "you wouldn't steal a car" advertisement for the MPAA and gets them to make "you wouldn't offer your own payment method for digital goods".

Despegar 5y ago
>The IP argument seems a bit hollow to me, since Apple would've had to build probably upwards of 70% of the API surface for iOS just for their internal apps (and when they launched the iPhone SDK, they repeatedly pushed that developers were using the same tools they used to build the core apps). Does Amazon build separate warehouses for third-party goods? All you're saying is that software is a good business, which everyone already knows.
enos_feedler 5y ago
Even if it was 70%, it is hard to put a price on the additional 30%. As an example lets look at the Camera API. It is possible do full encoding at high resolution of two independent sensors recording simultaneously (front + back camera for instance). There is no 1st party functionality that uses this. This requires a combination of hardware (media + sensor chips), OS, API, testing, docs, etc, that is built for 3P. This is just 1 example. It is hard to argue that Apple is not investing a fair share of the 30% platform fees back into the platform itself (hardware, software and services).

paxys 5y ago

Regardless of the outcome, it is clear that the trial (and the inevitable appeals) is going to leave its mark on the future of app stores and digital distribution. What started as a dispute over a random game turned into possibly the highest profile lawsuit Apple has had to fight. They made Tim Cook take the stand for the first time in his life. A lot of damaging PR was unearthed. Apple and others have already announced concessions for developers in the last few months (like cutting the rate to 15% for the first $1M in revenue, followed closely by Google who did the same). Antitrust investigations in the EU and other jurisdictions are picking up steam. This saga is far from over.

Dracophoenix 5y ago
It seems that this saga goes far beyond Apple. The bigger question this will probably lead to is to what extent operating systems/platforms/intellectual property fully belong to a person or entity. How much of it should be "shared" if at all? This will affect game consoles, ATMs, automobiles, and anything with an electronic circuit. It's a property rights conundrum fit for the 21st century.
- enos_feedler 5y ago
  Ben argues that even the Apple question is murky enough to make it impractical for regulation to step in. Expanding the question only muddies the waters even more. For any actual change to occur the underlying issue needs more focus and clarity. I would say follow the email trails and focus more specifically on Spotify, iBooks and conflict of interest
  - halostatue 5y ago
    It’s impractical for the courts to regulate. Congress can pass laws about this sort of behaviour if they wish.
    - Dracophoenix 5y ago
      I doubt it's within Congress's ability or capability. In addition to property rights, this case also involves freedom of speech and association. Congress can't make any laws abridging Apple's freedoms at the expense of the consumer's/developer's or vice versa. The courts don't exist to regulate, they exist to interpret their impartial findings on the basis of current law. What's needed is an answer to these questions and there's no better place to do it than in the courts.

nxc18 5y ago

I love my iPhone and solidly side with Apple in this case, and have ditched Spotify due to their spiteful position. Fuck Epic. Still, I totally agree with this: > What I wish would happen — and yes, I know this is naive and stupid and probably fruitless — is that Apple would just give the slightest bit of ground. They could have bought a lot of good will if they just changed their fee model slightly for subscription and purchasing apps. It is totally reasonable to require that app subscriptions are done in store, but for services like Spotify, Kindle, etc, there should be options to buy in app. Apple could even require that they process transactions, but just not take a cut. App store-based subcriptions add a lot of value, enough to justify a small premium. As a consumer, I like having one place to go to cancel my subscriptions. I don’t have to worry about being tricked into an auto-renewal. I don’t see a problem getting rid of anti-steering if the fee is reduced; my time is valuable enough that I’m not going to jump through hoops to save 10%, and I suspect that is true for much of Apple’s customers (I’m told day after day that iPhones are just for rich, elitist people, despite TCO often being lower than Android).

simion314 5y ago
I think Apple could done something like " any application that has payments should offer an Apple Pay option" but not force prices for outside the store or other payment methods or only Apple pay. With this scheme Apple Pay fans can use it for everything.
- vineyardmike 5y ago
  Besides the profit apple makes, there are other reasons they require apple pay... my partner used to work as an apple care agent and tons of people would call in saying apple apps took their money (but they were actually just random 3rd parties from app store). Apple is able to give them their money back. These callers can't distinguish between apple and a third party app. Sometimes even from big names like uber or facebook. Apple is doing what they can to uphold their reputation (and yes, profit).
  - simion314 5y ago

jbverschoor 5y ago

> In this world you don’t need 1,000 true fans to make a living; you need 1,786 — 536 fans to pay Apple, 253 fans to pay Twitter, and only then the 1,000 that make it possible to create something new. It is inevitable that some number of businesses never get started, because of this deadweight loss. So when is Epic going to sue the federal and state tax organizations? They're taking in some case up to 50% (VAT + corporate tax)

smoldesu 5y ago
Governments can't feasibly sustain themselves without taxation. Apple already drives industry-leading profit margins on their hardware side, so nobody's really fooled when the largest company in the world complains about how hard it is to turn a buck.
kbelder 5y ago
The correct takeaway is that, without the government, you'd need about 500 fans.

ksec 5y ago

I have the similar wish and opinion as Ben Thompson. ( But somehow unpopular on HN ) >And, for what it’s worth, continue controlling games: I do think the App Store is a safer model, particularly for kids, and the fact of the matter is that consoles have the same rules. Move Games away from App Store to Game Store. Keep those 30% cut. This way Apple have just protected ~90% of their App Store revenue. Like Ben have said, this is similar to console. >Let developers own their apps, including telling users about their websites, and let creatives build relationships with their fans instead of intermediating everything. Not just "creatives", but business to built relationship with their customers. Most people will still definitely sign up through Apple ID simply due to protection and simplicity. Collect flat 10% commission on digital goods with no exemption. And App Store should approve apps as long as they are legal, fit the quality of apps in both UI and security requirement. Not because of its political speeches. Finally Subscription Scams. Something needs to be done. I have a few solutions in my head but all of them have major drawbacks.

vineyardmike 5y ago
> Not because of its political speeches. Not aware of apple banning anything due to politics (beyond international politics like china). If you're discussing parler they claim its due to not being moderated (or adequately). This seems like a somewhat reasonable requirement.

makecheck 5y ago

Too much credit is given to the concept of “just using another phone”, whether it is for a user or a developer. As a user, no way I would just toss aside years of app purchases and past experiences on one platform to suddenly decide to switch. Sure, some people do but generally they don’t. Switching cost applies to lots of things, not just phones, yet the inability of app stores to transfer proof of purchase makes this cost higher than it would normally be. As a developer, like it or not you will depend on some (usually large) percentage of APIs available only on your first chosen platform. Probably even the programming language! And for the most unfortunate of businesses, a ton of this effort will be spent up front before even knowing if some new idea for an app will be denied entry to the App Store due to some unwritten rule (or worse, denied a few years in as the rules shift). If you reach the conclusion that you picked the wrong first platform, most developers are not “free” to “just” pick another phone/platform and make it all work out before going broke.

withinboredom 5y ago
I had some success reaching out to android devs for a voucher on iOS when I switched. My success was mostly limited to finding contact information. When I did, a few answered with a voucher. Most didn’t reply.
karimmaassen 5y ago
Kinda agree. I as an iPhone user, am completely aware of the fact I'm not only buying "just a device" but I committed myself to an ecosystem. And I did so, quite willingly as I place my trust in Apple and how they control and guard the quality and safety of the software that I can put on my iPhone. Now I can understand the sentiment of "free choice". But we're not talking about public utilities here. These are all commercial products provided to us by private companies. The choice we have is to not accept the offer as a whole. The market has spoken however and it seems we - the general public - are ok with how Apple runs their company.

asimpletune 5y ago

> What I wish would happen — and yes, I know this is naive and stupid and probably fruitless — is that Apple would just give the slightest bit of ground. Does anyone know if there's a strategic legal reason Apple hasn't done this (beyond the small developer program)? Like, imagine tomorrow they give ground. What op-eds would I read in the WSJ about how they've exposed themselves x, y, z problems? I mean this in the legal sense, not the obvious, usual slippery slope. One thing that really struck me in this article was Phil Schiller's email about sort of capping the rule after Apple takes in $1B in profit. I thought that was a very sweet and kind thing to suggest. Maybe the number is wrong, maybe the motivation is wrong, but I do like the spirit of this. Basically, "fair" is hard to define. As stated in the article, literally everyone has good points. In cases like this, when fair in some kind of algebraic sense is impossible, maybe the easiest and best way to approach it is to say "fair is when everyone is more or less ok". Maybe that's the case now, maybe that's the sentiment that Phil was putting fourth. I wonder what that version of "fair" would like like today? Or maybe that's exactly what the small developer program is. Like, you don't have to pay that much unless you're making $1M or more. I know I would be very happy as a developer to have an app like this, and anything beyond that I'd probably be totally sucked into a money crazed world anyway, and probably miserable.