43 ms·

I think the threat of rival app stores is highly overrated: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33978081 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33978081 https:/

I think the threat of rival app stores is highly overrated: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33978081 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33978081 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30808926 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30808926 I don't think they have the product gumption, nor do users have the patience, to deal with multiple app stores. They'll just end up abandoning those apps, at least on iOS. Also regulators will not be amused by other companies forcing users to use their own walled gardens if those gardens are going to be full on data-mining operations.

hightrix 3y ago
> I think the threat of rival app stores is highly overrated Agreed. I also don't think Google or Facebook will make iOS stores. My real worry is that a malicious actor will create a side loadable store called "iGoogle Store" that is then pushed to non-technical people. I could easily see both young and old people falling for this. This "iGoogle Store" would then request Google login credentials and millions of accounts are compromised. I don't see why wanting a closed ecosystem is a choice people are so against. There is a great open option, I'd prefer the current closed option to remain completely closed.
- Apocryphon 3y ago
  That's a fair consideration, and I don't have an immediate answer to that. Except to say that Apple could have gotten behind the opening up of iOS themselves, retaining some measure of control and protecting their users: > Really, Apple could have headed off regulators at the pass if they had embraced the (semi-)opening of their platform themselves. Allow third party app stores but on their own terms, providing SDKs and APIs for creating your own iOS App Store with security checks baked in and mandating privacy protections built in. Sort of like a software services equivalent to Apple Authorized Service Providers and Apple Authorized Resellers. They would have then controlled this debate, and there would have been less room for the Epics of the world to complain about the platform being locked down. Not to mention users would benefit from greater choice. Imagine boutique third party app stores springing up devoted to specific interests and niches such as F-Droid, or promising better curation or quality. Companies who refuse to use the AppStoreKit that Apple so beneficently provided would then be seen as malefactors seeking to subject their users to lack of privacy and security, rather than Apple trying to uphold their 30% cut and restrictive behavior. Instead, Apple tried to control everything and not only did they expose themselves to regulation like this, they deal with customers annoyed at scammy apps on their own App Store, and third party devs crying foul at inconsistent policing. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32170848 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32170848 I mean, I think there's still time for them to try something like this. Embrace alternative app stores and building the infrastructure to enable them, rather than just throwing open the doors and letting the wolves swarm "because the EU made us do it." In fact I can see this scenario happening because the motivation would be to prove openness is inherently dangerous.
  - martimarkov 3y ago
    I actually don’t have a problem so much with this solution. It ensures that apps are still adhering to the same standards on privacy and security and that’s what I care about. One thing that is missing is the requirement for each app to use in app purchases and how easy it is to cancel subscriptions. If you give a suggestion on this one (give that the above I’m very okay with) in the spirit of the above one - I’d most likely switch camps
LexGray 3y ago
I should imagine large kickbacks to apps using Google and Facebook SDKs even if they do not launch stores directly. They don’t need a store if they can get every other store compromised. I also think shareholders in those companies that lust after data would revolt if they did not try to directly take all app sale profit and install data. I would be shocked if both did not already have apps in development stage. I think the changes Apple should make is add a little indicator to every app showing the store it was purchased from encircling the icon with the default store color to remind of non-default privacy in that app. Just green badge them all and call it a day to let people know the app will be slower going through app specific memory encryption and API filtering with new anti-piracy frameworks to combat modified or fraudulent purchases. Perhaps some new app storefront licensing board if the EU is serious about protecting consumers. Their current policy seems half baked along the line of shutting down government is a good thing. Make single click subscription cancellation a requirement for opening a storefront with and require bond to prevent stores from just cutting and running after a few fraudulent sales. I think it is a shame how much silicon and engineering effort this will burn to maintain device security. It may go as far as apps run through a virtual machine sandbox with limited permissions in the short term. Personally being limited on my device made me sad, but as I lack self control the restrictions helped me focus.
- Apocryphon 3y ago
  On the subject of app scanning, this comment just pointed at Exodus Privacy, which can analyze Android apps for potential data violations. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37681899 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37681899 Perhaps the future is that Apple, along with government watchdogs, data consumer protection groups, etc. provide free public scans of apps to detect permissions misuse and data tracking. > I think the changes Apple should make is add a little indicator to every app showing the store it was purchased from encircling the icon with the default store color to remind of non-default privacy in that app. Just green badge them all and call it a day to let people know the app will be slower going through app specific memory encryption and API filtering with new anti-piracy frameworks to combat modified or fraudulent purchases. I think these discussions often assign a lot of agency to the data malefactors and little to Apple. I've often made the point that Apple, being the masters of UX and subtle social engineering, can exploit their design to nudge less technical users away from dubious apps, very similarly to how they've created the infamous dichotomy between blue and green text bubbles: https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&query=green%20bubble%20apocryphon&type=comment https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&query=green%20bubble%2... So I definitely agree that badging non-App Store apps can be a way to protect users by deterring those who don't know what they're doing from mucking about with questionable apps. I like the licensing board idea too. Make it so there are more protection groups out there besides Apple itself. Apply it to Android as well so users on that platform aren't shafted.

hightrix 3y ago

> I think the threat of rival app stores is highly overrated Agreed. I also don't think Google or Facebook will make iOS stores. My real worry is that a malicious actor will create a side loadable store called "iGoogle Store" that is then pushed to non-technical people. I could easily see both young and old people falling for this. This "iGoogle Store" would then request Google login credentials and millions of accounts are compromised. I don't see why wanting a closed ecosystem is a choice people are so against. There is a great open option, I'd prefer the current closed option to remain completely closed.

Apocryphon 3y ago
That's a fair consideration, and I don't have an immediate answer to that. Except to say that Apple could have gotten behind the opening up of iOS themselves, retaining some measure of control and protecting their users: > Really, Apple could have headed off regulators at the pass if they had embraced the (semi-)opening of their platform themselves. Allow third party app stores but on their own terms, providing SDKs and APIs for creating your own iOS App Store with security checks baked in and mandating privacy protections built in. Sort of like a software services equivalent to Apple Authorized Service Providers and Apple Authorized Resellers. They would have then controlled this debate, and there would have been less room for the Epics of the world to complain about the platform being locked down. Not to mention users would benefit from greater choice. Imagine boutique third party app stores springing up devoted to specific interests and niches such as F-Droid, or promising better curation or quality. Companies who refuse to use the AppStoreKit that Apple so beneficently provided would then be seen as malefactors seeking to subject their users to lack of privacy and security, rather than Apple trying to uphold their 30% cut and restrictive behavior. Instead, Apple tried to control everything and not only did they expose themselves to regulation like this, they deal with customers annoyed at scammy apps on their own App Store, and third party devs crying foul at inconsistent policing. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32170848 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32170848 I mean, I think there's still time for them to try something like this. Embrace alternative app stores and building the infrastructure to enable them, rather than just throwing open the doors and letting the wolves swarm "because the EU made us do it." In fact I can see this scenario happening because the motivation would be to prove openness is inherently dangerous.
- martimarkov 3y ago
  I actually don’t have a problem so much with this solution. It ensures that apps are still adhering to the same standards on privacy and security and that’s what I care about. One thing that is missing is the requirement for each app to use in app purchases and how easy it is to cancel subscriptions. If you give a suggestion on this one (give that the above I’m very okay with) in the spirit of the above one - I’d most likely switch camps

LexGray 3y ago

I should imagine large kickbacks to apps using Google and Facebook SDKs even if they do not launch stores directly. They don’t need a store if they can get every other store compromised. I also think shareholders in those companies that lust after data would revolt if they did not try to directly take all app sale profit and install data. I would be shocked if both did not already have apps in development stage. I think the changes Apple should make is add a little indicator to every app showing the store it was purchased from encircling the icon with the default store color to remind of non-default privacy in that app. Just green badge them all and call it a day to let people know the app will be slower going through app specific memory encryption and API filtering with new anti-piracy frameworks to combat modified or fraudulent purchases. Perhaps some new app storefront licensing board if the EU is serious about protecting consumers. Their current policy seems half baked along the line of shutting down government is a good thing. Make single click subscription cancellation a requirement for opening a storefront with and require bond to prevent stores from just cutting and running after a few fraudulent sales. I think it is a shame how much silicon and engineering effort this will burn to maintain device security. It may go as far as apps run through a virtual machine sandbox with limited permissions in the short term. Personally being limited on my device made me sad, but as I lack self control the restrictions helped me focus.

Apocryphon 3y ago
On the subject of app scanning, this comment just pointed at Exodus Privacy, which can analyze Android apps for potential data violations. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37681899 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37681899 Perhaps the future is that Apple, along with government watchdogs, data consumer protection groups, etc. provide free public scans of apps to detect permissions misuse and data tracking. > I think the changes Apple should make is add a little indicator to every app showing the store it was purchased from encircling the icon with the default store color to remind of non-default privacy in that app. Just green badge them all and call it a day to let people know the app will be slower going through app specific memory encryption and API filtering with new anti-piracy frameworks to combat modified or fraudulent purchases. I think these discussions often assign a lot of agency to the data malefactors and little to Apple. I've often made the point that Apple, being the masters of UX and subtle social engineering, can exploit their design to nudge less technical users away from dubious apps, very similarly to how they've created the infamous dichotomy between blue and green text bubbles: https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&query=green%20bubble%20apocryphon&type=comment https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&query=green%20bubble%2... So I definitely agree that badging non-App Store apps can be a way to protect users by deterring those who don't know what they're doing from mucking about with questionable apps. I like the licensing board idea too. Make it so there are more protection groups out there besides Apple itself. Apply it to Android as well so users on that platform aren't shafted.