7 ms·

Sudden outbreak of common sense. I hope this passes and forces Google/Apple to justify the value that their app stores provide, for the amount that they take fr

by chomp 5y ago

Sudden outbreak of common sense. I hope this passes and forces Google/Apple to justify the value that their app stores provide, for the amount that they take from developers.

stuff4ben 5y ago
I tend to side with the tech companies (Apple in particular) due to the security issues and review process. It's not perfect and the cut seems excessive IMO, but there is value there that can't be dismissed outright. It'll be interesting to see how Apple and Google handle this. Maybe they'll allow side-loading with big, scary language? Or perhaps a cheaper or even free tier for developers to allow apps on their respective App stores?
- JoeAltmaier 5y ago
  Don't kid yourself. Definitely not value for money. They're checking that nobody is getting around their pay-to-play walled garden. Any security checking is probably automated and incidental.
  - stuff4ben 5y ago
    > Any security checking is probably automated Genuine question, do you think that comes free? It costs money to develop these things and having control over the app store allows them to recoup that. I see no problem except maybe it's too expensive for developers. A more reasonable cut should be offered IMO.
    - e93849 5y ago
      I already paid Apple when I bought my iPhone. Why should I be forced to keep paying them more?
      - JoeAltmaier 5y ago
        Hell, you own the phone, the contract with the carrier, the storage. Apple is like a thug on the street charging a cover charge to go in the club, and they don't own the club or work for them. They just demand money because they're bigger than you.
- e4e78a06 5y ago
  Android already has side loading, and Epic tried and failed to get a third party store going. I highly doubt this bill will do anything unless it mandates that Google can't mandate Google Play Store as a condition of receiving development support.
  - scarface74 5y ago
    Epic also perfectly demonstrated the security issues involved. https://www.cnet.com/tech/mobile/just-as-critics-feared-fortnite-for-android-came-with-an-epic-security-risk/ https://www.cnet.com/tech/mobile/just-as-critics-feared-fort...
    - JaimeThompson 5y ago
      Apple also perfectly demonstrated even more worrisome security issues https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30192743 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30192743
      - scarface74 5y ago
        Would you trust Apple to patch security fixes and distribute it as soon as they know or a random third party developer?
        bluSCALE4 5y ago
        Neither. Lots of bounty hunters have come out threatening to go public if Apple doesn't patch fix / pay them.
        scarface74 5y ago
        Why haven’t they then? Or at least sold them already to one of the Israeli firms?
        JaimeThompson 5y ago
- itg 5y ago
  I don't buy the security issue scare-mongering from Apple if they are required to open up their platform. Bruce Schneier points out the flaws in Apple's argument very well in his letter https://www.schneier.com/essays/archives/2022/01/letter-to-the-us-senate-judiciary-committee-on-app-stores.html https://www.schneier.com/essays/archives/2022/01/letter-to-t....
  - anonymouse008 5y ago
    If I paid for Apple's centralization, by buying their products, and now that's being forcefully removed from me. How is this ok?
    - olyjohn 5y ago
      What's being removed from you again? Don't sideload apps if you don't like sideloading. Keep using Apple's app store if you like it, or maybe in the future, you will find you like an app store better than Apple's. We will never find out if someone does it better than Apple, if nobody can even try.
      - threeseed 5y ago
        This is such a facetious argument. You know that developers will end up using alternate App Stores. Which means I will be forced to use them if I want to continue to use the app.
        Apocryphon 5y ago
        What developers will do that? Android has alternate stores, and there isn't any vendor lock-in. The Amazon and Samsung Android alternatives to the Play Store aren't huge competitors. Epic hasn't tried to build their alternative Android app store yet with Fortnite as an exclusive. This is all scare-mongering about what could happen but probably won't happen. Name a single major Android app that's located on an alternative app store.
        idle_zealot 5y ago
- m463 5y ago
  But what if there was a "Bruce Schneier" app store?
olliej 5y ago
No, the value the store provides is the SDK. Just as Unity requires you to license IP, I haven't seen any evidence to suggest that the is going away, only now developers get to bypass sandbox restrictions and access user data. From the users point of view side loading allows only a reduction in security. All those tracking restrictions? App Store submission policy. All those raw data access protections? App Store rejecting sandbox features that are unsafe. There is a reason malware is a huge problem on android but not on iOS.
- flutas 5y ago
  > No, the value the store provides is the SDK. Just as Unity requires you to license IP Except Unity doesn't make the only device that Unity games can run on. Apple should be making their money from the phones, not seeing the phones as a utility to get even more licensing fees ($99/yr, 30% cut of all payments) from developers. But also doesn't the $99/yr charged to put apps on the store count as a license, making your Unity example sound even more monopolistic for Apple.
  - olliej 5y ago
    Apple makes some on the sale of hardware, but does not charge end users for software updates after then. Unlike google it actually supports that hardware. The support costs money. You're right that unity wasn't a great example though. A better example would be the xbox, playstation, switch, etc. The alternative model is you sell out your users, like google does.
    - ahiknsr 5y ago
      > You're right that unity wasn't a great example though. A better example would be the xbox, playstation, switch, etc. Not really. Gaming consoles are usually sold at loss. "The reason game consoles end up being profitable is through a combination of software, service, and accessory sales, but it's still surprising to find Microsoft has never achieved hardware profitability" https://www.pcmag.com/news/microsoft-says-xbox-consoles-have-always-been-sold-at-a-loss https://www.pcmag.com/news/microsoft-says-xbox-consoles-have...

by chomp 5y ago

Sudden outbreak of common sense. I hope this passes and forces Google/Apple to justify the value that their app stores provide, for the amount that they take from developers.

stuff4ben 5y ago

I tend to side with the tech companies (Apple in particular) due to the security issues and review process. It's not perfect and the cut seems excessive IMO, but there is value there that can't be dismissed outright. It'll be interesting to see how Apple and Google handle this. Maybe they'll allow side-loading with big, scary language? Or perhaps a cheaper or even free tier for developers to allow apps on their respective App stores?

JoeAltmaier 5y ago
Don't kid yourself. Definitely not value for money. They're checking that nobody is getting around their pay-to-play walled garden. Any security checking is probably automated and incidental.
- stuff4ben 5y ago
  > Any security checking is probably automated Genuine question, do you think that comes free? It costs money to develop these things and having control over the app store allows them to recoup that. I see no problem except maybe it's too expensive for developers. A more reasonable cut should be offered IMO.
  - e93849 5y ago
    I already paid Apple when I bought my iPhone. Why should I be forced to keep paying them more?
    - JoeAltmaier 5y ago
      Hell, you own the phone, the contract with the carrier, the storage. Apple is like a thug on the street charging a cover charge to go in the club, and they don't own the club or work for them. They just demand money because they're bigger than you.
e4e78a06 5y ago
Android already has side loading, and Epic tried and failed to get a third party store going. I highly doubt this bill will do anything unless it mandates that Google can't mandate Google Play Store as a condition of receiving development support.
- scarface74 5y ago
  Epic also perfectly demonstrated the security issues involved. https://www.cnet.com/tech/mobile/just-as-critics-feared-fortnite-for-android-came-with-an-epic-security-risk/ https://www.cnet.com/tech/mobile/just-as-critics-feared-fort...
  - JaimeThompson 5y ago
    Apple also perfectly demonstrated even more worrisome security issues https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30192743 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30192743
    - scarface74 5y ago
      Would you trust Apple to patch security fixes and distribute it as soon as they know or a random third party developer?
      - bluSCALE4 5y ago
        Neither. Lots of bounty hunters have come out threatening to go public if Apple doesn't patch fix / pay them.
        scarface74 5y ago
        Why haven’t they then? Or at least sold them already to one of the Israeli firms?
        JaimeThompson 5y ago
itg 5y ago
I don't buy the security issue scare-mongering from Apple if they are required to open up their platform. Bruce Schneier points out the flaws in Apple's argument very well in his letter https://www.schneier.com/essays/archives/2022/01/letter-to-the-us-senate-judiciary-committee-on-app-stores.html https://www.schneier.com/essays/archives/2022/01/letter-to-t....
- anonymouse008 5y ago
  If I paid for Apple's centralization, by buying their products, and now that's being forcefully removed from me. How is this ok?
  - olyjohn 5y ago
    What's being removed from you again? Don't sideload apps if you don't like sideloading. Keep using Apple's app store if you like it, or maybe in the future, you will find you like an app store better than Apple's. We will never find out if someone does it better than Apple, if nobody can even try.
    - threeseed 5y ago
      This is such a facetious argument. You know that developers will end up using alternate App Stores. Which means I will be forced to use them if I want to continue to use the app.
      - Apocryphon 5y ago
        What developers will do that? Android has alternate stores, and there isn't any vendor lock-in. The Amazon and Samsung Android alternatives to the Play Store aren't huge competitors. Epic hasn't tried to build their alternative Android app store yet with Fortnite as an exclusive. This is all scare-mongering about what could happen but probably won't happen. Name a single major Android app that's located on an alternative app store.
      - idle_zealot 5y ago
m463 5y ago
But what if there was a "Bruce Schneier" app store?

olliej 5y ago

No, the value the store provides is the SDK. Just as Unity requires you to license IP, I haven't seen any evidence to suggest that the is going away, only now developers get to bypass sandbox restrictions and access user data. From the users point of view side loading allows only a reduction in security. All those tracking restrictions? App Store submission policy. All those raw data access protections? App Store rejecting sandbox features that are unsafe. There is a reason malware is a huge problem on android but not on iOS.

flutas 5y ago
> No, the value the store provides is the SDK. Just as Unity requires you to license IP Except Unity doesn't make the only device that Unity games can run on. Apple should be making their money from the phones, not seeing the phones as a utility to get even more licensing fees ($99/yr, 30% cut of all payments) from developers. But also doesn't the $99/yr charged to put apps on the store count as a license, making your Unity example sound even more monopolistic for Apple.
- olliej 5y ago
  Apple makes some on the sale of hardware, but does not charge end users for software updates after then. Unlike google it actually supports that hardware. The support costs money. You're right that unity wasn't a great example though. A better example would be the xbox, playstation, switch, etc. The alternative model is you sell out your users, like google does.
  - ahiknsr 5y ago
    > You're right that unity wasn't a great example though. A better example would be the xbox, playstation, switch, etc. Not really. Gaming consoles are usually sold at loss. "The reason game consoles end up being profitable is through a combination of software, service, and accessory sales, but it's still surprising to find Microsoft has never achieved hardware profitability" https://www.pcmag.com/news/microsoft-says-xbox-consoles-have-always-been-sold-at-a-loss https://www.pcmag.com/news/microsoft-says-xbox-consoles-have...