7 ms·

What splitting the app store from the OS does is encourage stores to compete on the basis of quality of the store and not the quality of the store + OS + hardwa

by oddity 5y ago

What splitting the app store from the OS does is encourage stores to compete on the basis of quality of the store and not the quality of the store + OS + hardware. Apple and Google will have less leverage, but all the qualities of an aggregator will still apply. Google doesn't own the websites they index or the internet they're served over, but they still have tremendous control over the web. We see this even in the PC space: people will refuse to buy games not on Steam and many of the stores that sprung up a few years ago (Origin and UPlay) have since conceded and narrowed in scope. Some apps will bypass the Apple/Google store, advertise themselves, and supply their own infrastructure for distribution. When that happens, Apple and Google will no longer have control. Implicit in the argument that they should have control is the assumption that these two companies are the only two enforcement bodies that can be trusted. As should be evident by now, you do not control Apple or Google and have no recourse if they break your trust. These companies care, first and foremost about their profit margin. It is naïve to think that consumer choice reflects Apple's or Google's stewardship of the store. Not everyone buys a phone because they like the walled garden. I used to think sideloading was/third-party stores were a problem because of what you describe, but I've come to believe that it's the most free-market solution available to curtail some of the excesses of these gatekeepers while minimizing design-by-government.

bradknowles 5y ago
But only Apple and Google are big enough to fight the other bad actors. Sure, their interests may not always be aligned with mine, but we are much more likely to be aligned than mine with the bad actors. So, I pay my money, and I get Apple to be my Big Brother who protects me from the bad actors. And if I decide that I no longer want Apple to play that role, then I can go buy an Andoproid device, or whatever. But Apple can’t effectively play Big Brother in that role and protect me from all the other bad actors, if they are forced to allow alternative app stores and sideloading. It’s like cryptography. Either it’s broken, or it’s not. Or Pregnancy. You are either pregnant or not. You can’t be a little bit pregnant, or have crypto that is only a little bit broken.
- vineyardmike 5y ago
  > if they are forced to allow alternative app stores and sideloading. You can not use alternatives. It's like pregnancy, if you wear protection, you can have safe sex. If you're scared protection isn't enough, you can not have sex and you won't get pregnant. Ok wait that's a weird example that isn't supposed to be preachy but the point is you can always not use non-apple app stores and apple can still protect you.
  - Retric 5y ago
    The largest part of this protection is major companies not being exclusive on other app stores. If EA says all games must be downloaded from X, people are going to use X even if X doesn’t offer refunds of any kind etc.
  - runawaybottle 5y ago
    For a lot of the world, they will not be able to say ‘no’ to a Facebook App Store. That’s the attack vector. Selling an ad-model based FB app on the FB App Store might have more reach than simply targeting iOS users. If Zuck’s money is behind this, it’s a really good checkmate. Where are the real journalists when you need them? We need a list of whoever is funding these lobbyists.
- oddity 5y ago
  > But only Apple and Google are big enough to fight the other bad actors "big" is not the deciding factor. Amazon and Microsoft are also big. They do not decide what's on your phone. Apple's and Google's stores are big by default because Apple and Google have control of the platform. It's not the other way around. It's also not binary. If the store is decoupled, they will have less control, but not no control. Influence is weighted by user-base. > Sure, their interests may not always be aligned with mine, but we are much more likely to be aligned than mine with the bad actors Their interests are more aligned because they sell you the platform. They have many more ways to do this that aren't dependent on a quality app store. A store that survives on just the store is even more aligned to maximizing loyalty and trust in that store. > And if I decide that I no longer want Apple to play that role, then I can go buy an Andoproid device, or whatever Maybe you can, but for most people in the world, a phone is a significant investment and not a choice you can easily switch when you've already spent significant money in the ecosystem. > It’s like cryptography. Either it’s broken, or it’s not It's not. Even now, there are practical limits to what Apple can demand of its developers. Less control means less power, not no power. A store filled with bad apps is not a store most people will willingly buy from, unless there is external pressure forcing them. I don't think there's really much of an argument there. What this discussion is really about is the Facebooks of the world that have tremendous influence and also do shady things. Already, we see that Facebook plays by different rules with different stores, with greater tracking on Google platforms. This wouldn't change if Apple's store were still big enough to matter, but if Apple's power were weakened there's a risk that Facebook (for example) might have enough power to not care. So, this is what it's really about: some people trust Apple more than Facebook and want Apple to have total power in that relationship by being bigger than Facebook. This necessarily piggybacks off of the power given by people who do not care about or trust Apple, gained by means that are not the quality of the store. These people will likely stay with Apple regardless of how much Apple abuses its trust, but yet the people that do trust Apple think their trust matters.
judge2020 5y ago
The issue is that, now, third-party companies can force you install their store to download their app, and can use ad tracking identifiers outside of the IDFA, or worse, use private APIs (like auto-obtaining your phone number) as much as they want. We saw this with Epic before they went on the Play Store - you had to use their launcher to install Fortnite. All it does is force "choice" onto users further down the stack - users that don't know what they might be giving up when they install a third-party app store when trying to install "Fortnite" or even "Fortnite VBucks Generator Free iOS".
- shadilay 5y ago
  All of this is a failing of the OS layer which should manage permissions not stores.
  - kelnos 5y ago
    Exactly. There shouldn't be a private API to get your phone number. There should be a public API, and calling it should request permission from the user. Of course, the app can refuse to function if you deny it...
    - jdavis703 5y ago
      But I wouldn’t want the settings app for example to pop up a bunch of dialogs asking for permission to enable various private APIs.
      - Jcowell 5y ago
        Exactly. Come in HN. You’re smart. If you give the average user numerous pop up boxes to click they’re going to be conditioned to click allow no matter what the permission is to get where they need to go. It is not an answer and counter productive.
        kelnos 5y ago
        Sure, there's a fine line between users actually reading the prompt and making a real choice vs. just tapping "allow" to get it to go away. I feel like "do you want to give this app your phone number?" falls under the former, though. Right there along with "do you want to give this app your location?", which is of course already something users have to allow.
kelnos 5y ago
I do think competition will be limited, though, as Apple's and Google's stores will be installed by default when you get the phone. Most people just stick with the default. Consider browser search engine defaults: Google pays Mozilla a lot of money to be the default search engine on Firefox, even with Firefox's small and declining market share. The holder of the default has a huge competitive advantage in that most users won't stray from it, or even think about the possibility of an alternative. (It's funny, because this just feels like an echo of the 90s, when Microsoft killed Netscape in no small part by bundling Internet Explorer as the default for new OS installs.)

by oddity 5y ago

bradknowles 5y ago

But only Apple and Google are big enough to fight the other bad actors. Sure, their interests may not always be aligned with mine, but we are much more likely to be aligned than mine with the bad actors. So, I pay my money, and I get Apple to be my Big Brother who protects me from the bad actors. And if I decide that I no longer want Apple to play that role, then I can go buy an Andoproid device, or whatever. But Apple can’t effectively play Big Brother in that role and protect me from all the other bad actors, if they are forced to allow alternative app stores and sideloading. It’s like cryptography. Either it’s broken, or it’s not. Or Pregnancy. You are either pregnant or not. You can’t be a little bit pregnant, or have crypto that is only a little bit broken.

vineyardmike 5y ago
> if they are forced to allow alternative app stores and sideloading. You can not use alternatives. It's like pregnancy, if you wear protection, you can have safe sex. If you're scared protection isn't enough, you can not have sex and you won't get pregnant. Ok wait that's a weird example that isn't supposed to be preachy but the point is you can always not use non-apple app stores and apple can still protect you.
- Retric 5y ago
  The largest part of this protection is major companies not being exclusive on other app stores. If EA says all games must be downloaded from X, people are going to use X even if X doesn’t offer refunds of any kind etc.
- runawaybottle 5y ago
  For a lot of the world, they will not be able to say ‘no’ to a Facebook App Store. That’s the attack vector. Selling an ad-model based FB app on the FB App Store might have more reach than simply targeting iOS users. If Zuck’s money is behind this, it’s a really good checkmate. Where are the real journalists when you need them? We need a list of whoever is funding these lobbyists.
oddity 5y ago
> But only Apple and Google are big enough to fight the other bad actors "big" is not the deciding factor. Amazon and Microsoft are also big. They do not decide what's on your phone. Apple's and Google's stores are big by default because Apple and Google have control of the platform. It's not the other way around. It's also not binary. If the store is decoupled, they will have less control, but not no control. Influence is weighted by user-base. > Sure, their interests may not always be aligned with mine, but we are much more likely to be aligned than mine with the bad actors Their interests are more aligned because they sell you the platform. They have many more ways to do this that aren't dependent on a quality app store. A store that survives on just the store is even more aligned to maximizing loyalty and trust in that store. > And if I decide that I no longer want Apple to play that role, then I can go buy an Andoproid device, or whatever Maybe you can, but for most people in the world, a phone is a significant investment and not a choice you can easily switch when you've already spent significant money in the ecosystem. > It’s like cryptography. Either it’s broken, or it’s not It's not. Even now, there are practical limits to what Apple can demand of its developers. Less control means less power, not no power. A store filled with bad apps is not a store most people will willingly buy from, unless there is external pressure forcing them. I don't think there's really much of an argument there. What this discussion is really about is the Facebooks of the world that have tremendous influence and also do shady things. Already, we see that Facebook plays by different rules with different stores, with greater tracking on Google platforms. This wouldn't change if Apple's store were still big enough to matter, but if Apple's power were weakened there's a risk that Facebook (for example) might have enough power to not care. So, this is what it's really about: some people trust Apple more than Facebook and want Apple to have total power in that relationship by being bigger than Facebook. This necessarily piggybacks off of the power given by people who do not care about or trust Apple, gained by means that are not the quality of the store. These people will likely stay with Apple regardless of how much Apple abuses its trust, but yet the people that do trust Apple think their trust matters.

judge2020 5y ago

The issue is that, now, third-party companies can force you install their store to download their app, and can use ad tracking identifiers outside of the IDFA, or worse, use private APIs (like auto-obtaining your phone number) as much as they want. We saw this with Epic before they went on the Play Store - you had to use their launcher to install Fortnite. All it does is force "choice" onto users further down the stack - users that don't know what they might be giving up when they install a third-party app store when trying to install "Fortnite" or even "Fortnite VBucks Generator Free iOS".

shadilay 5y ago
All of this is a failing of the OS layer which should manage permissions not stores.
- kelnos 5y ago
  Exactly. There shouldn't be a private API to get your phone number. There should be a public API, and calling it should request permission from the user. Of course, the app can refuse to function if you deny it...
  - jdavis703 5y ago
    But I wouldn’t want the settings app for example to pop up a bunch of dialogs asking for permission to enable various private APIs.
    - Jcowell 5y ago
      Exactly. Come in HN. You’re smart. If you give the average user numerous pop up boxes to click they’re going to be conditioned to click allow no matter what the permission is to get where they need to go. It is not an answer and counter productive.
      - kelnos 5y ago
        Sure, there's a fine line between users actually reading the prompt and making a real choice vs. just tapping "allow" to get it to go away. I feel like "do you want to give this app your phone number?" falls under the former, though. Right there along with "do you want to give this app your location?", which is of course already something users have to allow.

kelnos 5y ago

I do think competition will be limited, though, as Apple's and Google's stores will be installed by default when you get the phone. Most people just stick with the default. Consider browser search engine defaults: Google pays Mozilla a lot of money to be the default search engine on Firefox, even with Firefox's small and declining market share. The holder of the default has a huge competitive advantage in that most users won't stray from it, or even think about the possibility of an alternative. (It's funny, because this just feels like an echo of the 90s, when Microsoft killed Netscape in no small part by bundling Internet Explorer as the default for new OS installs.)