6 ms·

I will say this once again: App Stores are too important in the current world to be left to the mercy of some big Internet company. I agree they should get a cu

I will say this once again: App Stores are too important in the current world to be left to the mercy of some big Internet company. I agree they should get a cut due to them being both the creators and maintainers of their platforms, but their ability to regulate what's in them should be left to a third party or government agency, just like trade is not left to its own devices and has regulators. Apple and Google are way too powerful for their own good.

zivkovicp 5y ago
hear, hear.
bogwog 5y ago
Figuring out a fair and effective set of laws/regulations to control how these companies run their app stores seems way too hard and unrealistic. The easier and more effective solution is to simply force them to allow alternative app stores (without suppressing competition, like Google currently does). A free market tends to correct itself in the long term, so that should solve the majority of problems plaguing the mobile software industry today.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- Aeolun 5y ago
  > Figuring out a fair and effective set of laws/regulations to control how these companies run their app stores seems way too hard and unrealistic Anything has to be better than what we have today…
  - EricE 5y ago
    Yes, competition is better. Force them to allow other app stores on the same footing with Google's and Apple's. See how fast both suddenly find resources to deal with issues like these. Sunlight (and competition) is the best disinfectant!
- someotherperson 5y ago
  > Figuring out a fair and effective set of laws/regulations to control how these companies run their app stores seems way too hard and unrealistic. I don't think it's hard or unrealistic to force companies to provide realistic support. Entire industries have had this established for decades. Imagine you're renting office space and the landlord decides you've done something wrong, clears your things out and changes the locks -- refusing to tell you what you've done or allow your business to continue to operate. This sounds extremely unrealistic because it is, in the real world you'd take them to court and sue them for losses. And there is plenty of legislation behind it to support you. Similarly, having companies like Google become accountable like this isn't actually that hard. There just isn't any will to do so at the moment and livelihoods will continue to be destroyed in the interim.
  - bogwog 5y ago
    That’s different though. There aren’t only 2 landlords in the world, so making laws that affect landlords makes sense. But how do you design a law that corrects the bad behavior of 2 monopolists, while at the same time not adding a burden to any potential competitors (and thereby strengthening the existing monopolies)? Forcing competition makes more sense to me. No need to get into endless debates about the risks to innovation, or government being too big, etc. Just open the gates to competition and call it a day. If the mobile app store market goes to shit in the future, then we can start getting into the weeds of it. But for now, there’s no need for that; the answer is obvious.
    - someotherperson 5y ago
      > while at the same time not adding a burden to any potential competitors (and thereby strengthening the existing monopolies) Expecting some level of support being provided, especially in a paid B2B engagement, doesn't stifle competition. If a competitor can't provide basic support, especially when they're just starting up, then it's best that that business fails. They're essentially modelling their business plan based on Google's worst attributes. That's not competition I'd like to see develop a foothold, or the type of competition we should be encouraging, let alone structure our laws to support.
- zo1 5y ago
  As much as being a full 100% free-market person, I'd still say there are plenty of fair and (probably) effective ways to regulate this market.
- withinboredom 5y ago
  I think that they’ve effectively become so rich they’d just buy any effective competition.
- Sohcahtoa82 5y ago
  > A free market tends to correct itself in the long term Only if enough consumers are affected. Situations like the OP happen, but they're exceptionally rare. They just make a lot of noise.
  - bogwog 5y ago
    Not necessarily. In a competitive market, Google would need to fight to win over developers, otherwise their store will be lacking apps, and therefore customers. A noisy post like OPs would actually make Google shit themselves if they didn’t have an app store monopoly. Even if it’s a single dev out of millions, the bad press would be much more costly than making things right.
q-big 5y ago
As long as * developers continue to develop apps for the respective app store (they could often create a web app, but they don't) * there is no outcry among users for competition (instead of monopoly) in the provides app store(s) nothing will change.
- dymk 5y ago
  None of the apps created by the developer being discussed could have been created as a webapp.
- gondo 5y ago
  Web apps do not have access to all the features smartphone provides. This is by design (at least on iOS) to force developers to use the App Store.
unabridged 5y ago
I don't think regulation is the answer. The US government should just create app.gov with a 1% fee or something and out compete them.
- inapis 5y ago
  Eh. Governments should absolutely not get in the business of creating or running an app store. Mobile computing is, effectively, a necessity in the modern world but the web already serves as a great independent distribution platform. We should rather focus on not enabling the technology giants to gimp the web for their business moats.
- ComradePhil 5y ago
  Why? When they can make regulation once and that will be that?
Pooge 5y ago
I would much rather have a repository system like F-Droid (or you could compare it to Debian/AUR/openSUSE) where the publisher has to create a repository that respects some kind of standard so that they can distribute their software. NewPipe does this for F-Droid in order to deploy the updates faster. Otherwise, F-Droid needs to very, compile and deploy themselves and it usually takes a few days.
- kmeisthax 5y ago
  F-Droid repositories are equivalent to alternative app stores, including all of the associated malware risks they bear, just with a nicer UI and lower barrier-to-entry than building your own app store. F-Droid's rules exist specifically to ensure that an app's source code corresponds with it's binaries. This reduces the risk of using F-Droid because all source code is available and auditable. There is no guarantee that said source code has been audited, and FOSS malware does exist[0], but it makes it harder to hide such code. I would personally prefer if Google Play had similar requirements, but the entire industry would be up in arms if Google started mandating source code escrow. [0] Notably, the ironically-named `peacenotwar` package on npm, which is a cyberwarfare tool that attempts to wipe files on Russian and Belarusian machines.

zivkovicp 5y ago

hear, hear.

bogwog 5y ago

Figuring out a fair and effective set of laws/regulations to control how these companies run their app stores seems way too hard and unrealistic. The easier and more effective solution is to simply force them to allow alternative app stores (without suppressing competition, like Google currently does). A free market tends to correct itself in the long term, so that should solve the majority of problems plaguing the mobile software industry today.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
Aeolun 5y ago
> Figuring out a fair and effective set of laws/regulations to control how these companies run their app stores seems way too hard and unrealistic Anything has to be better than what we have today…
- EricE 5y ago
  Yes, competition is better. Force them to allow other app stores on the same footing with Google's and Apple's. See how fast both suddenly find resources to deal with issues like these. Sunlight (and competition) is the best disinfectant!
someotherperson 5y ago
> Figuring out a fair and effective set of laws/regulations to control how these companies run their app stores seems way too hard and unrealistic. I don't think it's hard or unrealistic to force companies to provide realistic support. Entire industries have had this established for decades. Imagine you're renting office space and the landlord decides you've done something wrong, clears your things out and changes the locks -- refusing to tell you what you've done or allow your business to continue to operate. This sounds extremely unrealistic because it is, in the real world you'd take them to court and sue them for losses. And there is plenty of legislation behind it to support you. Similarly, having companies like Google become accountable like this isn't actually that hard. There just isn't any will to do so at the moment and livelihoods will continue to be destroyed in the interim.
- bogwog 5y ago
  That’s different though. There aren’t only 2 landlords in the world, so making laws that affect landlords makes sense. But how do you design a law that corrects the bad behavior of 2 monopolists, while at the same time not adding a burden to any potential competitors (and thereby strengthening the existing monopolies)? Forcing competition makes more sense to me. No need to get into endless debates about the risks to innovation, or government being too big, etc. Just open the gates to competition and call it a day. If the mobile app store market goes to shit in the future, then we can start getting into the weeds of it. But for now, there’s no need for that; the answer is obvious.
  - someotherperson 5y ago
    > while at the same time not adding a burden to any potential competitors (and thereby strengthening the existing monopolies) Expecting some level of support being provided, especially in a paid B2B engagement, doesn't stifle competition. If a competitor can't provide basic support, especially when they're just starting up, then it's best that that business fails. They're essentially modelling their business plan based on Google's worst attributes. That's not competition I'd like to see develop a foothold, or the type of competition we should be encouraging, let alone structure our laws to support.
zo1 5y ago
As much as being a full 100% free-market person, I'd still say there are plenty of fair and (probably) effective ways to regulate this market.
withinboredom 5y ago
I think that they’ve effectively become so rich they’d just buy any effective competition.
Sohcahtoa82 5y ago
> A free market tends to correct itself in the long term Only if enough consumers are affected. Situations like the OP happen, but they're exceptionally rare. They just make a lot of noise.
- bogwog 5y ago
  Not necessarily. In a competitive market, Google would need to fight to win over developers, otherwise their store will be lacking apps, and therefore customers. A noisy post like OPs would actually make Google shit themselves if they didn’t have an app store monopoly. Even if it’s a single dev out of millions, the bad press would be much more costly than making things right.

q-big 5y ago

As long as * developers continue to develop apps for the respective app store (they could often create a web app, but they don't) * there is no outcry among users for competition (instead of monopoly) in the provides app store(s) nothing will change.

dymk 5y ago
None of the apps created by the developer being discussed could have been created as a webapp.
gondo 5y ago
Web apps do not have access to all the features smartphone provides. This is by design (at least on iOS) to force developers to use the App Store.

unabridged 5y ago

I don't think regulation is the answer. The US government should just create app.gov with a 1% fee or something and out compete them.

inapis 5y ago
Eh. Governments should absolutely not get in the business of creating or running an app store. Mobile computing is, effectively, a necessity in the modern world but the web already serves as a great independent distribution platform. We should rather focus on not enabling the technology giants to gimp the web for their business moats.
ComradePhil 5y ago
Why? When they can make regulation once and that will be that?

Pooge 5y ago

I would much rather have a repository system like F-Droid (or you could compare it to Debian/AUR/openSUSE) where the publisher has to create a repository that respects some kind of standard so that they can distribute their software. NewPipe does this for F-Droid in order to deploy the updates faster. Otherwise, F-Droid needs to very, compile and deploy themselves and it usually takes a few days.

kmeisthax 5y ago
F-Droid repositories are equivalent to alternative app stores, including all of the associated malware risks they bear, just with a nicer UI and lower barrier-to-entry than building your own app store. F-Droid's rules exist specifically to ensure that an app's source code corresponds with it's binaries. This reduces the risk of using F-Droid because all source code is available and auditable. There is no guarantee that said source code has been audited, and FOSS malware does exist[0], but it makes it harder to hide such code. I would personally prefer if Google Play had similar requirements, but the entire industry would be up in arms if Google started mandating source code escrow. [0] Notably, the ironically-named `peacenotwar` package on npm, which is a cyberwarfare tool that attempts to wipe files on Russian and Belarusian machines.