8 ms·

I don't like (government) regulation, but I feel that this should be regulated... If you're banned from a nightclub, it sucks.. but there are many, many other

I don't like (government) regulation, but I feel that this should be regulated... If you're banned from a nightclub, it sucks.. but there are many, many other nightclubs (unless you live in a place small enough to have only one... then it sucks too). If you're banned from apple, you basically have only google play left, and considering that most people specifically develop for one platform or another, it's usually not just losing half your customer base, but sometimes losing all of it. Imagine having a potato farm, being able to sell potatos only to walmart, and walmart baning you from selling via them...

scarface74 4y ago
I’m usually opposed to government regulation in tech or giving the government power more in general. But I don’t see any negative consequences of passing a law saying a platform must provide a reason with documentation if a paying user is banned. There also must be an independent review board that is answerable to the board of directors. But not the CEO. On the other hand, it came out in the Epic case that there is “no duty to deal”. Meaning you can’t force a company to do business with anyone as long as it isn’t for a protected reason. The government can’t and shouldn’t force a company to do business with someone as in the Walmart case. Would you want the government to force a health or drug store to sell cigarettes?
- prvit 4y ago
  What's special about paying users? You could just refund them when you ban them.
  - viraptor 4y ago
    A refund does not make you a non paying customer. In the same way getting injured by a faulty product can't be resolved with "fully refunded, they're not our customer anymore". Accepting payment makes some obligations more real. As a free user you accept whatever tos apple throws at you and that's it. As a paying customer you buy a service, with many protections that includes. (depending on your country)
    - prvit 4y ago
      >A refund does not make you a non paying customer. In the same way getting injured by a faulty product can't be resolved with "fully refunded, they're not our customer anymore". A faulty product that simply doesn't work can totally be resolved with "fully refunded, they're not our customer anymore".
      - viraptor 4y ago
        Technically true, but missing the context. What happens is regulated by applicable local law: if both sides are happy with that solution and it's legal to do so, the issue may be resolved with a refund. For example in Australia ACCC says that sure, you're entitled to a refund as one of the options when a product/service fails. But that doesn't stop you from being able to claim damages or losses even if you're fully refunded. https://www.accc.gov.au/consumers/consumer-rights-guarantees/compensation-for-damages-loss https://www.accc.gov.au/consumers/consumer-rights-guarantees... Actually I'd love to see the result of involving ACCC in this situation if someone in Oz gets terminated. They can be very detailed in their analysis if they're interested.
        prvit 4y ago
        I don't know how things work in Australia, but I'd be really surprised if someone signing up to sell apps on the app store would be treated as a consumer. Also, paying for the right to develop on Apple platforms is hardly a service.
        viraptor 4y ago
        ACCC rules apply to products and services. The first sentence in the paid apps agreement is: > You hereby appoint Apple and Apple Subsidiaries (collectively “Apple”) as: (i) Your agent for the marketing and delivery of the Licensed Applications to End-Users Apple is providing devs a service.
        prvit 4y ago
  - lapcat 4y ago
    There's no evidence that Apple is refunding banned developer accounts, either for the yearly developer fee or for unpaid App Store sales. In fact, a few of my indie developer friends have gotten their monthly App Store payments held up by Apple while Apple investigates so-called "unusual activity" (which turned out to be nothing).
    - prvit 4y ago
      >There's no evidence that Apple is refunding banned developer accounts, either for the yearly developer fee or for unpaid App Store sales. I'm not really sure how that's relevant here, we're discussing hypothetical regulation that scarface74 is proposing. >In fact, a few of my indie developer friends have gotten their monthly App Store payments held up by Apple while Apple investigates so-called "unusual activity" (which turned out to be nothing). This is likely unavoidable as Apple is subject to a number of AML regulations.
    - scarface74 4y ago
      Every company that deals with payments does that. Banks, PayPal and I’m sure the various places like UpWork. You routinely hear that Amex puts people in “financial review” and locks your account out because of “suspicious activity”
      - lapcat 4y ago
        > Every company that deals with payments does that. Banks, Never in my life has my bank withheld a payment. And I've never had a job paycheck held back because of "suspicious activity". > Amex puts people in “financial review” and locks your account Amex doesn't pay you; you pay Amex. I'm talking about companies refusing to pay what they already owe you. App Store payments to developers are for app sales that are already long completed, and Apple has already taken the money from App Store customers.
        prvit 4y ago
        >Never in my life has my bank withheld a payment. And I've never had a job paycheck held back because of "suspicious activity". Either your bank is particularly lenient or your transactions are particularly boring. Most paychecks definitely fall into the "particularly boring" category. OTOH App store transactions are a relatively big money laundering risk, you are receiving payments from large amounts of different people.
  - scarface74 4y ago
    Because if you don’t pay for a product, you shouldn’t expect much. It’s why it amazes me that people tie so much of their lives to Google - an ad company.
- ajsnigrutin 4y ago
  > Would you want the government to force a health or drug store to sell cigarettes? Health/drug stores are not a monopoly (or a duopoly if you count google, but still a monopoly for apple users). If you could get apps for iDevices on "every street corner", one of them not selling apps from that specific developer wouldn't matter either.
- MatthiasPortzel 4y ago
  I wish the Apple developer program was set up more like a lease, where you're leasing a "storefront" from Apple. And they can deny you, or choose not to renew your lease, or buy you out of your lease. But they shouldn't need to approve individual app updates any more than a shopping center owner needs to approve the individual merchandise. No one would sign a lease that said "we can kick you out at any time," but that's what developers are agreeing to with Apple. It would require Apple to more selective up front about who they chose to do business with, but I think that would be a good thing, because it would give developers more stability once they were "in."
- himinlomax 4y ago
  > Would you want the government to force a health or drug store to sell cigarettes? That's a bizarre argument. You could argue similarly against speed limits, because next the government will force you to drive in reverse or something.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
raverbashing 4y ago
Companies hate regulation but they love to give plenty of reasons why regulation is needed.
- ajsnigrutin 4y ago
  They love regulation when it favours them :)
- chrischattin 4y ago
  It’s the opposite. Large companies love regulation as it creates extra costs and hurdles for smaller startups that might out-compete them otherwise. Regulation secures incumbent power.
amelius 4y ago
I feel that the App Store is really a monopoly since the Play Store is something else (it uses your personal data to sell ads, something I want to stay far away from). Also, competition law seems to be way too simple. We should have at least 10 similar-sized competitors in this field, yet we are stuck with this duopoly.
- that_guy_iain 4y ago
  The problem is no one wants to invest into making an mobile OS that OEMs will use. Nearly every alt mobile OS I've seen feels like it's coupled to the hardware and meant to be unique or super privacy focused which is a turn off for OEMs. OEMs have already been burnt by creating their own OS so none of them are getting in the mix. Microsoft screwed up too badly to come back. And Blackberry just staginated.
  - fezfight 4y ago
    Pinephone uses Linux. Pretty straight forward.
    - amelius 4y ago
      The one thing Linux seems to lack is good tried and tested sandboxing of untrusted applications. And of course an ecosystem of developers (e.g. why I can't run my bank app on Linux).
      - AnthonyMouse 4y ago
        The traditional way to bootstrap this is to support existing apps. Which in theory for Android is easy -- getting Android apps to run on Linux is what they already do. But then they weaponize inconvenience. You can run the app, but if you want Google Play, they stick you with their terms. SafetyNet blah blah. If you don't, the bank owns the copyright on the bank app so third party devs can't give ordinary users a convenient legal way to install it. So third party alternatives get friction on purpose and can't gain users. And without users people don't develop native apps.
mistrial9 4y ago
I was approached by a mid-level exec from Intel about participating in their 'app store' years ago. It was obvious that the middle-management was salivating at the idea of running a "store" with absolute control. No deal happened, that I know of..
pier25 4y ago
And losing all the work you've put into code that only runs on Apple devices. Apple can decide to throw all that investment down the drain.
- bryan_w 4y ago
  At least with android, you can release the raw .apk so that your existing users aren't left with nothing.
- sv_lastname 4y ago
  Exactly, but I published one of my projects on GitHub, at least its source code can useful for someone else.
  - wahnfrieden 4y ago
    never mind
    - pier25 4y ago
      Is it? Do you have a source?
    - lapcat 4y ago
      The App Store accepts stolen open source projects that violate the project's licensing. App review has no knowledge of that whatsoever. Review is incredibly superficial.
FollowingTheDao 4y ago
> I don't like (government) regulation, but I feel that this should be regulated... Ha, wow. "I do not like regulation, until it affects me, then I love it." > Imagine having a potato farm, being able to sell potatos only to walmart, and walmart baning you from selling via them... What you are talking about here is the dream of Libertarians.
- scarface74 4y ago
  It doesn’t affect me at all either way. I’m all for government regulation that forces a company to be transparent where customers can make informed decisions. It’s not some ignorant government officials trying to establish technical standards. It’s a very Libertarian stance that give consumers the power to make informed decisions. Notice I did not say that the government should have oversight on the process that private companies are allowed to ban users. I said the independent review board should be answerable to the board of directors not the CEO.
  - DaiPlusPlus 4y ago
    > I’m all for government regulation that forces a company to be transparent where customers can make informed decisions. What is your standard for judging where transparency should be legally required or not?
    - scarface74 4y ago
      Transparency should always be required to allow intelligent individuals to make informed decisions about how they spend their money.
      - FollowingTheDao 4y ago
        How much transparency? Can I walk into any corporations office and go through their file cabinets?
        4y ago
yosito 4y ago
IIRC, it IS regulated. GDPR and American equivalents have provisions that require companies to provide all of the data they have about you, and forbid companies from disabling accounts with automated systems without manual review. You may have to contact data protection authorities in your jurisdiction and file a report, then contact Apple's data protection officers and reference the report you made. I've had luck doing this with other tech companies in the past. It should be something that a person could manage themselves with a few days of persistence, but I suspect there are lawyers who would help with this as well. IMHO, the legal team at a big tech company would rather manually review an account and reinstate it, than take on the potential liability of having violated data protection laws. You just have to convince them that you know your rights and how to assert them, and there's a good chance they'll quickly comply with the law.
- AlphaWeaver 4y ago
  Could you cite the American equivalent legislation that protects those rights? Specifically the right to manual review?
  - yosito 4y ago
    As an EU citizen, I'm more familiar with GDPR. I recall seeing that there were similar requirements in the US, but it may have just been California's CCPA.
    - scarface74 4y ago
      The GDPR says no such thing. I can guarantee you that if the bank or any institution that has any financial dealings with you suspects you’re doing something illegal based on an automated system. They are going to lock you out first and then investigate.
      - yosito 4y ago
        Article 15 and article 22. Look it up if you're interested. They can automatically lock you out, but they are obligated to send you all the data they have about you, including whatever data caused their automated system to lock you out, and they are obligated to manually review automated lockouts. Edit: Here's the intro to article 22: > The data subject shall have the right not to be subject to a decision based solely on automated processing, including profiling, which produces legal effects concerning him or her or similarly significantly affects him or her.

scarface74 4y ago

I’m usually opposed to government regulation in tech or giving the government power more in general. But I don’t see any negative consequences of passing a law saying a platform must provide a reason with documentation if a paying user is banned. There also must be an independent review board that is answerable to the board of directors. But not the CEO. On the other hand, it came out in the Epic case that there is “no duty to deal”. Meaning you can’t force a company to do business with anyone as long as it isn’t for a protected reason. The government can’t and shouldn’t force a company to do business with someone as in the Walmart case. Would you want the government to force a health or drug store to sell cigarettes?

prvit 4y ago
What's special about paying users? You could just refund them when you ban them.
- viraptor 4y ago
  A refund does not make you a non paying customer. In the same way getting injured by a faulty product can't be resolved with "fully refunded, they're not our customer anymore". Accepting payment makes some obligations more real. As a free user you accept whatever tos apple throws at you and that's it. As a paying customer you buy a service, with many protections that includes. (depending on your country)
  - prvit 4y ago
    >A refund does not make you a non paying customer. In the same way getting injured by a faulty product can't be resolved with "fully refunded, they're not our customer anymore". A faulty product that simply doesn't work can totally be resolved with "fully refunded, they're not our customer anymore".
    - viraptor 4y ago
      Technically true, but missing the context. What happens is regulated by applicable local law: if both sides are happy with that solution and it's legal to do so, the issue may be resolved with a refund. For example in Australia ACCC says that sure, you're entitled to a refund as one of the options when a product/service fails. But that doesn't stop you from being able to claim damages or losses even if you're fully refunded. https://www.accc.gov.au/consumers/consumer-rights-guarantees/compensation-for-damages-loss https://www.accc.gov.au/consumers/consumer-rights-guarantees... Actually I'd love to see the result of involving ACCC in this situation if someone in Oz gets terminated. They can be very detailed in their analysis if they're interested.
      - prvit 4y ago
        I don't know how things work in Australia, but I'd be really surprised if someone signing up to sell apps on the app store would be treated as a consumer. Also, paying for the right to develop on Apple platforms is hardly a service.
        viraptor 4y ago
        ACCC rules apply to products and services. The first sentence in the paid apps agreement is: > You hereby appoint Apple and Apple Subsidiaries (collectively “Apple”) as: (i) Your agent for the marketing and delivery of the Licensed Applications to End-Users Apple is providing devs a service.
        prvit 4y ago
- lapcat 4y ago
  There's no evidence that Apple is refunding banned developer accounts, either for the yearly developer fee or for unpaid App Store sales. In fact, a few of my indie developer friends have gotten their monthly App Store payments held up by Apple while Apple investigates so-called "unusual activity" (which turned out to be nothing).
  - prvit 4y ago
    >There's no evidence that Apple is refunding banned developer accounts, either for the yearly developer fee or for unpaid App Store sales. I'm not really sure how that's relevant here, we're discussing hypothetical regulation that scarface74 is proposing. >In fact, a few of my indie developer friends have gotten their monthly App Store payments held up by Apple while Apple investigates so-called "unusual activity" (which turned out to be nothing). This is likely unavoidable as Apple is subject to a number of AML regulations.
  - scarface74 4y ago
    Every company that deals with payments does that. Banks, PayPal and I’m sure the various places like UpWork. You routinely hear that Amex puts people in “financial review” and locks your account out because of “suspicious activity”
    - lapcat 4y ago
      > Every company that deals with payments does that. Banks, Never in my life has my bank withheld a payment. And I've never had a job paycheck held back because of "suspicious activity". > Amex puts people in “financial review” and locks your account Amex doesn't pay you; you pay Amex. I'm talking about companies refusing to pay what they already owe you. App Store payments to developers are for app sales that are already long completed, and Apple has already taken the money from App Store customers.
      - prvit 4y ago
        >Never in my life has my bank withheld a payment. And I've never had a job paycheck held back because of "suspicious activity". Either your bank is particularly lenient or your transactions are particularly boring. Most paychecks definitely fall into the "particularly boring" category. OTOH App store transactions are a relatively big money laundering risk, you are receiving payments from large amounts of different people.
- scarface74 4y ago
  Because if you don’t pay for a product, you shouldn’t expect much. It’s why it amazes me that people tie so much of their lives to Google - an ad company.
ajsnigrutin 4y ago
> Would you want the government to force a health or drug store to sell cigarettes? Health/drug stores are not a monopoly (or a duopoly if you count google, but still a monopoly for apple users). If you could get apps for iDevices on "every street corner", one of them not selling apps from that specific developer wouldn't matter either.
MatthiasPortzel 4y ago
I wish the Apple developer program was set up more like a lease, where you're leasing a "storefront" from Apple. And they can deny you, or choose not to renew your lease, or buy you out of your lease. But they shouldn't need to approve individual app updates any more than a shopping center owner needs to approve the individual merchandise. No one would sign a lease that said "we can kick you out at any time," but that's what developers are agreeing to with Apple. It would require Apple to more selective up front about who they chose to do business with, but I think that would be a good thing, because it would give developers more stability once they were "in."
himinlomax 4y ago
> Would you want the government to force a health or drug store to sell cigarettes? That's a bizarre argument. You could argue similarly against speed limits, because next the government will force you to drive in reverse or something.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

raverbashing 4y ago

Companies hate regulation but they love to give plenty of reasons why regulation is needed.

ajsnigrutin 4y ago
They love regulation when it favours them :)
chrischattin 4y ago
It’s the opposite. Large companies love regulation as it creates extra costs and hurdles for smaller startups that might out-compete them otherwise. Regulation secures incumbent power.

amelius 4y ago

I feel that the App Store is really a monopoly since the Play Store is something else (it uses your personal data to sell ads, something I want to stay far away from). Also, competition law seems to be way too simple. We should have at least 10 similar-sized competitors in this field, yet we are stuck with this duopoly.

that_guy_iain 4y ago
The problem is no one wants to invest into making an mobile OS that OEMs will use. Nearly every alt mobile OS I've seen feels like it's coupled to the hardware and meant to be unique or super privacy focused which is a turn off for OEMs. OEMs have already been burnt by creating their own OS so none of them are getting in the mix. Microsoft screwed up too badly to come back. And Blackberry just staginated.
- fezfight 4y ago
  Pinephone uses Linux. Pretty straight forward.
  - amelius 4y ago
    The one thing Linux seems to lack is good tried and tested sandboxing of untrusted applications. And of course an ecosystem of developers (e.g. why I can't run my bank app on Linux).
    - AnthonyMouse 4y ago
      The traditional way to bootstrap this is to support existing apps. Which in theory for Android is easy -- getting Android apps to run on Linux is what they already do. But then they weaponize inconvenience. You can run the app, but if you want Google Play, they stick you with their terms. SafetyNet blah blah. If you don't, the bank owns the copyright on the bank app so third party devs can't give ordinary users a convenient legal way to install it. So third party alternatives get friction on purpose and can't gain users. And without users people don't develop native apps.

mistrial9 4y ago

I was approached by a mid-level exec from Intel about participating in their 'app store' years ago. It was obvious that the middle-management was salivating at the idea of running a "store" with absolute control. No deal happened, that I know of..

pier25 4y ago

And losing all the work you've put into code that only runs on Apple devices. Apple can decide to throw all that investment down the drain.

bryan_w 4y ago
At least with android, you can release the raw .apk so that your existing users aren't left with nothing.
sv_lastname 4y ago
Exactly, but I published one of my projects on GitHub, at least its source code can useful for someone else.
- wahnfrieden 4y ago
  never mind
  - pier25 4y ago
    Is it? Do you have a source?
  - lapcat 4y ago
    The App Store accepts stolen open source projects that violate the project's licensing. App review has no knowledge of that whatsoever. Review is incredibly superficial.

FollowingTheDao 4y ago

> I don't like (government) regulation, but I feel that this should be regulated... Ha, wow. "I do not like regulation, until it affects me, then I love it." > Imagine having a potato farm, being able to sell potatos only to walmart, and walmart baning you from selling via them... What you are talking about here is the dream of Libertarians.

scarface74 4y ago
It doesn’t affect me at all either way. I’m all for government regulation that forces a company to be transparent where customers can make informed decisions. It’s not some ignorant government officials trying to establish technical standards. It’s a very Libertarian stance that give consumers the power to make informed decisions. Notice I did not say that the government should have oversight on the process that private companies are allowed to ban users. I said the independent review board should be answerable to the board of directors not the CEO.
- DaiPlusPlus 4y ago
  > I’m all for government regulation that forces a company to be transparent where customers can make informed decisions. What is your standard for judging where transparency should be legally required or not?
  - scarface74 4y ago
    Transparency should always be required to allow intelligent individuals to make informed decisions about how they spend their money.
    - FollowingTheDao 4y ago
      How much transparency? Can I walk into any corporations office and go through their file cabinets?
      - 4y ago

yosito 4y ago

IIRC, it IS regulated. GDPR and American equivalents have provisions that require companies to provide all of the data they have about you, and forbid companies from disabling accounts with automated systems without manual review. You may have to contact data protection authorities in your jurisdiction and file a report, then contact Apple's data protection officers and reference the report you made. I've had luck doing this with other tech companies in the past. It should be something that a person could manage themselves with a few days of persistence, but I suspect there are lawyers who would help with this as well. IMHO, the legal team at a big tech company would rather manually review an account and reinstate it, than take on the potential liability of having violated data protection laws. You just have to convince them that you know your rights and how to assert them, and there's a good chance they'll quickly comply with the law.

AlphaWeaver 4y ago
Could you cite the American equivalent legislation that protects those rights? Specifically the right to manual review?
- yosito 4y ago
  As an EU citizen, I'm more familiar with GDPR. I recall seeing that there were similar requirements in the US, but it may have just been California's CCPA.
  - scarface74 4y ago
    The GDPR says no such thing. I can guarantee you that if the bank or any institution that has any financial dealings with you suspects you’re doing something illegal based on an automated system. They are going to lock you out first and then investigate.
    - yosito 4y ago
      Article 15 and article 22. Look it up if you're interested. They can automatically lock you out, but they are obligated to send you all the data they have about you, including whatever data caused their automated system to lock you out, and they are obligated to manually review automated lockouts. Edit: Here's the intro to article 22: > The data subject shall have the right not to be subject to a decision based solely on automated processing, including profiling, which produces legal effects concerning him or her or similarly significantly affects him or her.