5 ms·

> You are welcome to continue using the App Store. As long as apps remain available on the App Store. I wouldn’t be surprised to see, e.g., Facebook making the

> You are welcome to continue using the App Store. As long as apps remain available on the App Store. I wouldn’t be surprised to see, e.g., Facebook making their messaging app available via sideloading only in order to circumvent Apple’s privacy rules.

joshstrange 4y ago
This will 100% happen and anyone thinking otherwise is just being willfully ignorant. We saw what FB did when it was able to operate in the shadows with it's enterprise cert for it's "VPN". As for why it hasn't happened on Android I think the reasons are simple. First there is way more money to be made on iOS users and secondly sometimes you wait to strike until you can knock down all the pins, not just half. It will start innocent enough, they will add 1-2 features only available in "Facebook Pro/Full/Unleashed/etc" via their own app store/sideloading but over time they will sneak more and more sinister things into their app. Google will use the full weight of their ecosystem to try to get you to download Chrome or their other apps anytime you touch one of their sites in Safari (it's bad enough now even with them using webkit for their "browser"). This is the logical end for at least these two companies. I agree with some or parts of the things the EU is calling for here but some are just absolutely ridiculous and/or make no sense.
- Apocryphon 4y ago
  > First there is way more money to be made on iOS users and secondly sometimes you wait to strike until you can knock down all the pins, not just half. iOS users do spend more money on App Store purchases than Android. But if Meta's whole intention to build a 3rd party App Store is to mine them for data, why didn't they try that on Android- shouldn't the data of Android users be just as good, especially when they have a significantly larger user pool to do that with? Why would iOS users' data be more lucrative? Spending money on the App Store is orthogonal to having more desirable data to sell. > It will start innocent enough, they will add 1-2 features only available in "Facebook Pro/Full/Unleashed/etc" via their own app store/sideloading but over time they will sneak more and more sinister things into their app. Easy to conceive, difficult to execute. This scenario might have been feasible a decade ago, when Facebook was younger, their brand was fresher, and customers less jaded. If they were to do that today, they would immediately face friction from users who do not care for more fragmentation of services, and aren't even as engaged with the product as they used to. Maybe they could try to segment off a more popular product, say Instagram, but that would also cause blowback. > Google will use the full weight of their ecosystem to try to get you to download Chrome or their other apps anytime you touch one of their sites in Safari (it's bad enough now even with them using webkit for their "browser"). And why wouldn't EU/US courts apply antitrust laws against them? Why is antitrust law assumed to be only used against Apple, when legislators/regulators are miffed at all the large tech companies? I find the whole hypothetical of third party iOS app stores fascinating, because any examination into the landscape of app ecosystems show that they are bloody difficult to build. Ask Microsoft with the Windows Phone Store, or RIM with the BlackBerry Marketplace. Or just Amazon and Samsung with their third party Android app stores, which seem to exist mostly to service users on their own OEM Fire or Galaxy devices. The idea that Facebook or Google can just make third party app stores and everyone will flock to them is just a questionable, reductionist scenario that flies in the face of creeping consumer burnout in the present day, those companies' continued difficulties in creating new compelling products to woo consumers, and all of the failed app stores of the past. (As Ballmer said, it's all about the developers.) They would have to be cleverer about it. So far, I've yet to see any comprehensive hypotheticals that really deal with past and present realities about the difficulties in setting up such rival ecosystems. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31989720 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31989720
  - joshstrange 4y ago
    > Why would iOS users' data be more lucrative? Spending money on the App Store is orthogonal to having more desirable data to sell. This just isn't true. The data of people who have more money to spend is more attractive than that of those who do not. Also having more money to spend means that data can be used for targeted advertising or just knowing what people with money are interested in and where to focus efforts. > Easy to conceive, difficult to execute. This scenario might have been feasible a decade ago, when Facebook was younger, their brand was fresher, and customers less jaded. I mean, if you are still on FB and use it regularly there really isn't much hope for you at this point. I don't get the impression that there is a large number of people on FB saying "If they step over the line 1 more time I'm leaving", at this point it's people who just don't care. To some degree the same is true for IG even though it's users like to think it's different. It doesn't even have to be new features, it could just be something like groups (which I think failed) or messenger that they take away features or apps and only release them on their own store. They can even make a big hullabaloo about "This lets us get fixes and features out to you faster and lets you easily opt into our beta channel". > And why wouldn't EU/US courts apply antitrust laws against them? Why is antitrust law assumed to be only used against Apple now, when legislators/regulators are miffed at all the large tech companies? Why haven't they indeed? Their bad behavior is clearly visible, I'm completely unclear as to what the EU doesn't seem to care. They seem to be laser focused on mobile to the determinant of desktop and consoles. > I find the whole hypothetical of third party iOS app stores fascinating, because any examination into the landscape of app ecosystems show that they are bloody difficult to build. Ask Microsoft with the Windows Phone Store, or RIM with the BlackBerry Marketplace. Or just Amazon and Samsung with their third party Android app stores, which seem to exist mostly to service users on their own OEM Fire or Galaxy devices. MS had devices/OS that no one wanted, RIM was late to the game and had their lunch eaten by that point. As for Amazon/Samsung they capture a lot of a value by making themselves the default but more importantly, all of these examples are platform providers, not app developers (at their root). Meaning, they make their money by taking a cut, not by selling apps themselves or even through ads in apps (maybe ads in their store). The calculus changes for someone like FB, EA, EPIC, etc, especially for less savory app creators who don't care about privacy. I'm not saying that FB will create a store and become the number 1 app store, but that they will release their apps via their own store (with it's own rules, or lack thereof) and users will be forced/tricked/incentivized into using it. > The idea that Facebook or Google can just make third party app stores and everyone will flock to them is just a questionable, reductionist scenario that flies in the face of creeping consumer burnout in the present day, and all of the failed app stores of the past. Flock to? Probably not and that's not even what I'm afraid of/worried about. It's being forced into using third-party stores. Either by the company removing their app from the Apple App Store or by gating features to the app only if it was installed via their store.
ThatPlayer 4y ago
And that's why the messaging interoperability is part of it. It'll allow for new messaging apps (including some that stay on the App Store) to message people on Facebook without you having to install the app.

joshstrange 4y ago

This will 100% happen and anyone thinking otherwise is just being willfully ignorant. We saw what FB did when it was able to operate in the shadows with it's enterprise cert for it's "VPN". As for why it hasn't happened on Android I think the reasons are simple. First there is way more money to be made on iOS users and secondly sometimes you wait to strike until you can knock down all the pins, not just half. It will start innocent enough, they will add 1-2 features only available in "Facebook Pro/Full/Unleashed/etc" via their own app store/sideloading but over time they will sneak more and more sinister things into their app. Google will use the full weight of their ecosystem to try to get you to download Chrome or their other apps anytime you touch one of their sites in Safari (it's bad enough now even with them using webkit for their "browser"). This is the logical end for at least these two companies. I agree with some or parts of the things the EU is calling for here but some are just absolutely ridiculous and/or make no sense.

Apocryphon 4y ago
> First there is way more money to be made on iOS users and secondly sometimes you wait to strike until you can knock down all the pins, not just half. iOS users do spend more money on App Store purchases than Android. But if Meta's whole intention to build a 3rd party App Store is to mine them for data, why didn't they try that on Android- shouldn't the data of Android users be just as good, especially when they have a significantly larger user pool to do that with? Why would iOS users' data be more lucrative? Spending money on the App Store is orthogonal to having more desirable data to sell. > It will start innocent enough, they will add 1-2 features only available in "Facebook Pro/Full/Unleashed/etc" via their own app store/sideloading but over time they will sneak more and more sinister things into their app. Easy to conceive, difficult to execute. This scenario might have been feasible a decade ago, when Facebook was younger, their brand was fresher, and customers less jaded. If they were to do that today, they would immediately face friction from users who do not care for more fragmentation of services, and aren't even as engaged with the product as they used to. Maybe they could try to segment off a more popular product, say Instagram, but that would also cause blowback. > Google will use the full weight of their ecosystem to try to get you to download Chrome or their other apps anytime you touch one of their sites in Safari (it's bad enough now even with them using webkit for their "browser"). And why wouldn't EU/US courts apply antitrust laws against them? Why is antitrust law assumed to be only used against Apple, when legislators/regulators are miffed at all the large tech companies? I find the whole hypothetical of third party iOS app stores fascinating, because any examination into the landscape of app ecosystems show that they are bloody difficult to build. Ask Microsoft with the Windows Phone Store, or RIM with the BlackBerry Marketplace. Or just Amazon and Samsung with their third party Android app stores, which seem to exist mostly to service users on their own OEM Fire or Galaxy devices. The idea that Facebook or Google can just make third party app stores and everyone will flock to them is just a questionable, reductionist scenario that flies in the face of creeping consumer burnout in the present day, those companies' continued difficulties in creating new compelling products to woo consumers, and all of the failed app stores of the past. (As Ballmer said, it's all about the developers.) They would have to be cleverer about it. So far, I've yet to see any comprehensive hypotheticals that really deal with past and present realities about the difficulties in setting up such rival ecosystems. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31989720 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31989720
- joshstrange 4y ago
  > Why would iOS users' data be more lucrative? Spending money on the App Store is orthogonal to having more desirable data to sell. This just isn't true. The data of people who have more money to spend is more attractive than that of those who do not. Also having more money to spend means that data can be used for targeted advertising or just knowing what people with money are interested in and where to focus efforts. > Easy to conceive, difficult to execute. This scenario might have been feasible a decade ago, when Facebook was younger, their brand was fresher, and customers less jaded. I mean, if you are still on FB and use it regularly there really isn't much hope for you at this point. I don't get the impression that there is a large number of people on FB saying "If they step over the line 1 more time I'm leaving", at this point it's people who just don't care. To some degree the same is true for IG even though it's users like to think it's different. It doesn't even have to be new features, it could just be something like groups (which I think failed) or messenger that they take away features or apps and only release them on their own store. They can even make a big hullabaloo about "This lets us get fixes and features out to you faster and lets you easily opt into our beta channel". > And why wouldn't EU/US courts apply antitrust laws against them? Why is antitrust law assumed to be only used against Apple now, when legislators/regulators are miffed at all the large tech companies? Why haven't they indeed? Their bad behavior is clearly visible, I'm completely unclear as to what the EU doesn't seem to care. They seem to be laser focused on mobile to the determinant of desktop and consoles. > I find the whole hypothetical of third party iOS app stores fascinating, because any examination into the landscape of app ecosystems show that they are bloody difficult to build. Ask Microsoft with the Windows Phone Store, or RIM with the BlackBerry Marketplace. Or just Amazon and Samsung with their third party Android app stores, which seem to exist mostly to service users on their own OEM Fire or Galaxy devices. MS had devices/OS that no one wanted, RIM was late to the game and had their lunch eaten by that point. As for Amazon/Samsung they capture a lot of a value by making themselves the default but more importantly, all of these examples are platform providers, not app developers (at their root). Meaning, they make their money by taking a cut, not by selling apps themselves or even through ads in apps (maybe ads in their store). The calculus changes for someone like FB, EA, EPIC, etc, especially for less savory app creators who don't care about privacy. I'm not saying that FB will create a store and become the number 1 app store, but that they will release their apps via their own store (with it's own rules, or lack thereof) and users will be forced/tricked/incentivized into using it. > The idea that Facebook or Google can just make third party app stores and everyone will flock to them is just a questionable, reductionist scenario that flies in the face of creeping consumer burnout in the present day, and all of the failed app stores of the past. Flock to? Probably not and that's not even what I'm afraid of/worried about. It's being forced into using third-party stores. Either by the company removing their app from the Apple App Store or by gating features to the app only if it was installed via their store.

ThatPlayer 4y ago

And that's why the messaging interoperability is part of it. It'll allow for new messaging apps (including some that stay on the App Store) to message people on Facebook without you having to install the app.