5 ms·

I don’t see why smartphones inherently have to be a special case of computer where the manufacturer or OS developer gets to keep their finger in the pie after t

I don’t see why smartphones inherently have to be a special case of computer where the manufacturer or OS developer gets to keep their finger in the pie after the sale. I can install any software I want on my desktop or laptop, and nobody gets a cut of it unless both the seller and I freely choose to use an app store.

lokar 3y ago
The vast majority of consumers prefer and benefit from aspects of this control. Despite all the horror stories (both fp and fn) they keep the App Store much safer then mass direct installs would be.
- fsflover 3y ago
  https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39137917 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39137917
- johnnyanmac 3y ago
  Okay, and they can keep that control while some minority choose to host elsewhere. Androids Play store (pending some anti-trust issues, ironically) still has the majority of apps there and it'd be doubtful that any android alternative store can steal that mindshare away.
  - judge2020 3y ago
    > Androids Play store (pending some anti-trust issues, ironically) still has the majority of apps there and it'd be doubtful that any android alternative store can steal that mindshare away. If so, why did Google feel the need to bribe developers to keep their apps on the Play store? https://www.theverge.com/2021/8/19/22632818/google-project-hug-game-developers-play-store-millions-epic-lawsuit-complaint https://www.theverge.com/2021/8/19/22632818/google-project-h...
    - refulgentis 3y ago
      Objection, argumentative: being doubtful of X, and a company wanted to move X to 0 probability, aren't in tension.
    - johnnyanmac 3y ago
      I did mention that part briefly. And I am still a bit confused about the decision as well given some of the subjects that suppressed. I guess 2010's Google didn't want any trace of a popular gaming store to take over, given that we now know F2P mobile games are 70% of the app store revenue (and I'm sure it's similar to Google). If EA made the supposed Steam of Android and most games chose to focus on the EA store, that's a huge cut into Google revenue, even if most other apps would still be on the play store. So better not to risk it at all.
- bilbo0s 3y ago
  Well, not to put too fine a point on it, but the reality is that yes consumers do get some bit of benefit, but the real hole in the argument being made is that OS developers do make money off of us using our computers. We all had to pay the licensing fee for the software. For many of us, a fee is paid yearly to the OS developer on our behalf. Just because the fee is not explicitly placed against our own debit/credit card balances doesn't mean a fee isn't being paid. But even the fee argument misses the point. Myself and others are not asking that Apple not charge a fee. My feeling was that 30% on App revenue for example was too much. Given that the charges are now being itemized out in the open a bit better, do I still believe the fee was too high? I cautiously respond 'yes'. But I can now see where I might have been mistaken about what the amalgamation of the costs incurred to run this thing look like. I guess all I really wanted was transparency. Let's get it all on the table and see what's what. Maybe 30% is a good deal? Maybe it's not? I don't know if you don't tell me everything that went into that. Consumers should be informed, that's probably more what I believe now. I no longer believe we should change the model before we get a better idea of what the costs will be going forward. That could bankrupt a lot of small devs right now.
graeme 3y ago
The problem is no one has made a smartphone with that open model. Just as no one has made a video game console with that open model. Anyone is free to enter the hardware market with an open platform. There are some devices for sale which allow this. But they're enormously unpopular.
- latortuga 3y ago
  Arguably the Steam Deck is a video game console with that open model. It gets fuzzy though because an open video game console looks like a general purpose computer.
  - baq 3y ago
    ‘Looks like’ is a bit of an understatement ;)
- rajamaka 3y ago
  You are right, the smartphone industry is a monopoly and should be regulated as such.
- grishka 3y ago
  > The problem is no one has made a smartphone with that open model. Android is fully open. No one is making you use Google services. You can, in fact, buy a Pixel and simply uninstall the Play Store. As a developer, you can distribute your app without any Google involvement whatsoever.
  - spookie 3y ago
    Well, it's important to make the distinction between the Play Store and Google Services (the software). Plenty of things _depend_ on Google Services, some of them you have no option, like bank apps. It's true however that you can use microG to replace Google Services, but even then some banks will block your account upon doing that (happened to me). Granted, this really is a completely different point to what you were discussing, and I do agree with you. But, if we want truly open ecosystems, we need standards that ensure the authenticity of the user. Unfortunately, that gets distopian fast. I really don't know what to think of all of this.
threeseed 3y ago
Because most people don't think of smartphones as computers. They think of them far more like consoles or appliances. And the people that want pocketable computers have plenty of options.
DrBenCarson 3y ago
There's no demand for that or we would have already seen it. No one wants to help their geriatric parents uninstall malware on a regular basis
- bentcorner 3y ago
  There is demand and we do see it. Cydia and fdroid.
jasode 3y ago
>I don’t see why smartphones inherently have to be a special case of computer where the manufacturer or OS developer gets to keep their finger in the pie after the sale. In a pure technical sense, you're right, a mobile phone's computer doesn't have to be locked down such that the manufacturer like Apple controls the subsequent financial transactions on it. Instead of technical reasons, what happened was Apple taking advantage of historical control of cellphones by the carriers that was in place before Apple flipped the relationship around in 2007: - (1) before 2007, the cell carriers like AT&T and Verizon controlled what kind of software could be on the Palm Treo, Blackberry, Motorola, etc. - (2) Apple showed an iPhone prototype to Cingular/AT&T that impressed them so much that they were willing to give up software platform control to Apple. This was the first time a phone manufacturer had the leverage to do this. Cingular was lagging behind Verizon so that's why Cingular was willing to play ball and relinquish control. - (3) after 2007, Apple now controls the phone's software ecosystem with their App Store restrictions and it's a power they want to keep. In their mind, they feel justified since they are the ones who spent money on developing the phone and they're allowing more "freedom" of 3rd-party software than the carriers did. Apple's perspective is that its smartphones are not "open" computers like the IBM PC and Macbooks. Instead, it's the "closed" computers like the Sony PlayStation. Another "closed" computer is the AMD Ryzen + Linux system in Tesla's infotainment system. There is no "Tesla app store" for it. Instead, a 3rd-party app like Spotify has to forge a formal contractual partnership with Tesla to get integrated into the car's software. Some stories about that: https://www.google.com/search?q=spotify+signs+partnership+with+tesla https://www.google.com/search?q=spotify+signs+partnership+wi... Likewise, is there any technical reason why Tesla can't let you sideload any app on the car? No. But Tesla doesn't let you.
- judge2020 3y ago
  > - (1) the cell carriers like AT&T and Verizon controlled what kind of software could on the Palm Treo, Blackberry, Motorola, etc. It's worth watching "Blackberry" (2023) to see an instance of this in the style of a documentary drama.
- refulgentis 3y ago
  This is a really nice well-researched take that rhymes with a lot of stuff I used to read back around 2007-2009. But it's 2024. I grew up on the App Store, maybe I'm just old and cranky at 35. But my guess is 95% of people cry in pain when they see a wall of text about how Verizon charged for J2ME apps in 2004, therefore iPhones iPads Apple Watches Vision Pros are special exemptions and Apple should be able to bill "$0.50 per install per year." whenever a binary is installed on a device you paid for. There's 0 reason for it.
pmontra 3y ago
I own an HP laptop. Why should HP get any money from what I do on my laptop and the software I install on it? I already paid them. Their product is the laptop. Let's suppose that I still use Windows, which was installed on that laptop. I'm using Debian instead, but let's forget about it. Anyway, HP probably paid Microsoft for the OS. That's all that should be. I don't see any reason for me to pay Microsoft. Now, let's suppose that both HP and Microsoft switch to a subscription model where the laptop costs some xx Euro per month and for the OS. Then it's different, I would think if I want to enter into that relationship and if I do then I would be OK for them "to keep their finger in the pie". I won't use Windows anyway and I probably won't buy a subscription based computer. On the other side that would make me upgrade more often. It's more or less what some people do when selling their Mac to buy a new one. Sometimes the new one is not that good though.
chongli 3y ago
They’re not a special case, they’re just like game consoles which are similarly locked down. The PC is the special case and I think that’s an accident of history. If the PC were brand new today it would be a locked down, walled garden like all the rest. The PC is “the one that got away” in fishing parlance.
- macNchz 3y ago
  I think the distinction in my head is that game consoles are explicitly single-purpose (or very limited-purpose), whereas smartphones are playing at being general purpose, but only insofar as their manufacturer approves of that purpose. Personally I see the broader trend towards highly-restricted corporate-controlled hardware (of all types) as something explicitly detrimental that we should push back on wherever possible.
- irq-1 3y ago
  You should read this from 2012: Lockdown: The coming war on general-purpose computing https://boingboing.net/2012/01/10/lockdown.html https://boingboing.net/2012/01/10/lockdown.html or watch the speech: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kFY0a_VOGbE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kFY0a_VOGbE
  - chongli 3y ago
    Yeah I read that back in 2012. It’s gradually playing out!
scarface_74 3y ago
You mean like consoles, set top boxes, and smart TVs? Personal computers are the special case where you don’t have to pay the platform provider - there are far more phones+consoles+set top boxes than computers
- macNchz 3y ago
  As far as I know I can sideload apps onto my smart TV, and Sony isn't get a cut of my streaming subscriptions. Ultimately, though, those devices generally don't pretend to be general-purpose, whereas I think smartphones do, just with restrictions such that the manufacturer can keep a revenue stream going.
  - scarface_74 3y ago
    That’s not according to case law. Google got in trouble explicitly because they advertised their operating system as “open” and then changed the rules. Apple was very explicit from day one and anyone who buys an iOS device knows exactly what they are going to get.
Aerbil313 3y ago
> I don’t see why smartphones inherently have to be a special case of computer where the manufacturer or OS developer gets to keep their finger in the pie after the sale. Battery life. Simple as that.
ben_w 3y ago
Perfectly valid, I feel that way about all subscription-based non-ownership — I want to buy a thing and have it and "they" can't take it away from me. On the other hand, I'm old enough to remember when operating system upgrades were around 10% of the price of the original computer (for each upgrade, about once per year but not at all regular), and when I couldn't afford a compiler.
brnt 3y ago
Arguably with notarization your laptop and desktop aren't safe anymore either, if they run Macos.

lokar 3y ago

The vast majority of consumers prefer and benefit from aspects of this control. Despite all the horror stories (both fp and fn) they keep the App Store much safer then mass direct installs would be.

fsflover 3y ago
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39137917 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39137917
johnnyanmac 3y ago
Okay, and they can keep that control while some minority choose to host elsewhere. Androids Play store (pending some anti-trust issues, ironically) still has the majority of apps there and it'd be doubtful that any android alternative store can steal that mindshare away.
- judge2020 3y ago
  > Androids Play store (pending some anti-trust issues, ironically) still has the majority of apps there and it'd be doubtful that any android alternative store can steal that mindshare away. If so, why did Google feel the need to bribe developers to keep their apps on the Play store? https://www.theverge.com/2021/8/19/22632818/google-project-hug-game-developers-play-store-millions-epic-lawsuit-complaint https://www.theverge.com/2021/8/19/22632818/google-project-h...
  - refulgentis 3y ago
    Objection, argumentative: being doubtful of X, and a company wanted to move X to 0 probability, aren't in tension.
  - johnnyanmac 3y ago
    I did mention that part briefly. And I am still a bit confused about the decision as well given some of the subjects that suppressed. I guess 2010's Google didn't want any trace of a popular gaming store to take over, given that we now know F2P mobile games are 70% of the app store revenue (and I'm sure it's similar to Google). If EA made the supposed Steam of Android and most games chose to focus on the EA store, that's a huge cut into Google revenue, even if most other apps would still be on the play store. So better not to risk it at all.
bilbo0s 3y ago
Well, not to put too fine a point on it, but the reality is that yes consumers do get some bit of benefit, but the real hole in the argument being made is that OS developers do make money off of us using our computers. We all had to pay the licensing fee for the software. For many of us, a fee is paid yearly to the OS developer on our behalf. Just because the fee is not explicitly placed against our own debit/credit card balances doesn't mean a fee isn't being paid. But even the fee argument misses the point. Myself and others are not asking that Apple not charge a fee. My feeling was that 30% on App revenue for example was too much. Given that the charges are now being itemized out in the open a bit better, do I still believe the fee was too high? I cautiously respond 'yes'. But I can now see where I might have been mistaken about what the amalgamation of the costs incurred to run this thing look like. I guess all I really wanted was transparency. Let's get it all on the table and see what's what. Maybe 30% is a good deal? Maybe it's not? I don't know if you don't tell me everything that went into that. Consumers should be informed, that's probably more what I believe now. I no longer believe we should change the model before we get a better idea of what the costs will be going forward. That could bankrupt a lot of small devs right now.

graeme 3y ago

The problem is no one has made a smartphone with that open model. Just as no one has made a video game console with that open model. Anyone is free to enter the hardware market with an open platform. There are some devices for sale which allow this. But they're enormously unpopular.

latortuga 3y ago
Arguably the Steam Deck is a video game console with that open model. It gets fuzzy though because an open video game console looks like a general purpose computer.
- baq 3y ago
  ‘Looks like’ is a bit of an understatement ;)
rajamaka 3y ago
You are right, the smartphone industry is a monopoly and should be regulated as such.
grishka 3y ago
> The problem is no one has made a smartphone with that open model. Android is fully open. No one is making you use Google services. You can, in fact, buy a Pixel and simply uninstall the Play Store. As a developer, you can distribute your app without any Google involvement whatsoever.
- spookie 3y ago
  Well, it's important to make the distinction between the Play Store and Google Services (the software). Plenty of things _depend_ on Google Services, some of them you have no option, like bank apps. It's true however that you can use microG to replace Google Services, but even then some banks will block your account upon doing that (happened to me). Granted, this really is a completely different point to what you were discussing, and I do agree with you. But, if we want truly open ecosystems, we need standards that ensure the authenticity of the user. Unfortunately, that gets distopian fast. I really don't know what to think of all of this.

threeseed 3y ago

Because most people don't think of smartphones as computers. They think of them far more like consoles or appliances. And the people that want pocketable computers have plenty of options.

DrBenCarson 3y ago

There's no demand for that or we would have already seen it. No one wants to help their geriatric parents uninstall malware on a regular basis

bentcorner 3y ago
There is demand and we do see it. Cydia and fdroid.

jasode 3y ago

>I don’t see why smartphones inherently have to be a special case of computer where the manufacturer or OS developer gets to keep their finger in the pie after the sale. In a pure technical sense, you're right, a mobile phone's computer doesn't have to be locked down such that the manufacturer like Apple controls the subsequent financial transactions on it. Instead of technical reasons, what happened was Apple taking advantage of historical control of cellphones by the carriers that was in place before Apple flipped the relationship around in 2007: - (1) before 2007, the cell carriers like AT&T and Verizon controlled what kind of software could be on the Palm Treo, Blackberry, Motorola, etc. - (2) Apple showed an iPhone prototype to Cingular/AT&T that impressed them so much that they were willing to give up software platform control to Apple. This was the first time a phone manufacturer had the leverage to do this. Cingular was lagging behind Verizon so that's why Cingular was willing to play ball and relinquish control. - (3) after 2007, Apple now controls the phone's software ecosystem with their App Store restrictions and it's a power they want to keep. In their mind, they feel justified since they are the ones who spent money on developing the phone and they're allowing more "freedom" of 3rd-party software than the carriers did. Apple's perspective is that its smartphones are not "open" computers like the IBM PC and Macbooks. Instead, it's the "closed" computers like the Sony PlayStation. Another "closed" computer is the AMD Ryzen + Linux system in Tesla's infotainment system. There is no "Tesla app store" for it. Instead, a 3rd-party app like Spotify has to forge a formal contractual partnership with Tesla to get integrated into the car's software. Some stories about that: https://www.google.com/search?q=spotify+signs+partnership+with+tesla https://www.google.com/search?q=spotify+signs+partnership+wi... Likewise, is there any technical reason why Tesla can't let you sideload any app on the car? No. But Tesla doesn't let you.

judge2020 3y ago
> - (1) the cell carriers like AT&T and Verizon controlled what kind of software could on the Palm Treo, Blackberry, Motorola, etc. It's worth watching "Blackberry" (2023) to see an instance of this in the style of a documentary drama.
refulgentis 3y ago
This is a really nice well-researched take that rhymes with a lot of stuff I used to read back around 2007-2009. But it's 2024. I grew up on the App Store, maybe I'm just old and cranky at 35. But my guess is 95% of people cry in pain when they see a wall of text about how Verizon charged for J2ME apps in 2004, therefore iPhones iPads Apple Watches Vision Pros are special exemptions and Apple should be able to bill "$0.50 per install per year." whenever a binary is installed on a device you paid for. There's 0 reason for it.

pmontra 3y ago

I own an HP laptop. Why should HP get any money from what I do on my laptop and the software I install on it? I already paid them. Their product is the laptop. Let's suppose that I still use Windows, which was installed on that laptop. I'm using Debian instead, but let's forget about it. Anyway, HP probably paid Microsoft for the OS. That's all that should be. I don't see any reason for me to pay Microsoft. Now, let's suppose that both HP and Microsoft switch to a subscription model where the laptop costs some xx Euro per month and for the OS. Then it's different, I would think if I want to enter into that relationship and if I do then I would be OK for them "to keep their finger in the pie". I won't use Windows anyway and I probably won't buy a subscription based computer. On the other side that would make me upgrade more often. It's more or less what some people do when selling their Mac to buy a new one. Sometimes the new one is not that good though.

chongli 3y ago

They’re not a special case, they’re just like game consoles which are similarly locked down. The PC is the special case and I think that’s an accident of history. If the PC were brand new today it would be a locked down, walled garden like all the rest. The PC is “the one that got away” in fishing parlance.

macNchz 3y ago
I think the distinction in my head is that game consoles are explicitly single-purpose (or very limited-purpose), whereas smartphones are playing at being general purpose, but only insofar as their manufacturer approves of that purpose. Personally I see the broader trend towards highly-restricted corporate-controlled hardware (of all types) as something explicitly detrimental that we should push back on wherever possible.
irq-1 3y ago
You should read this from 2012: Lockdown: The coming war on general-purpose computing https://boingboing.net/2012/01/10/lockdown.html https://boingboing.net/2012/01/10/lockdown.html or watch the speech: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kFY0a_VOGbE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kFY0a_VOGbE
- chongli 3y ago
  Yeah I read that back in 2012. It’s gradually playing out!

scarface_74 3y ago

You mean like consoles, set top boxes, and smart TVs? Personal computers are the special case where you don’t have to pay the platform provider - there are far more phones+consoles+set top boxes than computers

macNchz 3y ago
As far as I know I can sideload apps onto my smart TV, and Sony isn't get a cut of my streaming subscriptions. Ultimately, though, those devices generally don't pretend to be general-purpose, whereas I think smartphones do, just with restrictions such that the manufacturer can keep a revenue stream going.
- scarface_74 3y ago
  That’s not according to case law. Google got in trouble explicitly because they advertised their operating system as “open” and then changed the rules. Apple was very explicit from day one and anyone who buys an iOS device knows exactly what they are going to get.

Aerbil313 3y ago

> I don’t see why smartphones inherently have to be a special case of computer where the manufacturer or OS developer gets to keep their finger in the pie after the sale. Battery life. Simple as that.

ben_w 3y ago

Perfectly valid, I feel that way about all subscription-based non-ownership — I want to buy a thing and have it and "they" can't take it away from me. On the other hand, I'm old enough to remember when operating system upgrades were around 10% of the price of the original computer (for each upgrade, about once per year but not at all regular), and when I couldn't afford a compiler.

brnt 3y ago

Arguably with notarization your laptop and desktop aren't safe anymore either, if they run Macos.