10 ms·

That third party app stores are subject to review by apple is a problem in itself.

whazor 2y ago
And all the apps in the third party store too.
Barrin92 2y ago
one step at a time. Bureaucracies and regulators move slow but it seems pretty evident that the wind is at least blowing into the correct direction this time. Might take another five years or so but in a lot of regions it seems like the control over devices and software is slowly breaking down. India, Japan, SK all have similar regulation passed or on the way.
- lostlogin 2y ago
  > similar regulation passed or on the way. With exclusions that suit them. As you say, the wind is blowing the right way, it would be nice to see but console games get the same treatment.
  - Rinzler89 2y ago
    >With exclusions that suit them. Excuse them because they want their own rules and regulations on their territory and not the default US rules that ship with Google and Apple devices. That would be like Budweiser selling their beer in Europe with the condition you have to be 21 to drink it because that's how it is where they're from.
    - olelele 2y ago
      Except we have real beer in Europe:)
  - johnnyanmac 2y ago
    >it would be nice to see but console games get the same treatment. what's the appeal? consoles at best last 8 years before the new generation. These stores probably take 2-4 years to prepare properly. A dev won't use half their generation to get around a 30% fee. I think one understated part of the consoles is that that 30% does go into proper support, compared to apple/google that act more as gatekeepers. Larger studios knowing they can get on-site console developers to help debug, optimize, and maybe even fix API issues is well worth such a cut.
    - kibwen 2y ago
      > consoles at best last 8 years before the new generation. Consoles remain alive way longer in poorer regions of the world. The lock-in from console manufacturers is designed to artificially shorten console lifecycles by cutting off supply of newly-manufactured older consoles and new games for those consoles. It's textbook planned obsolescence. I don't want a single CPU in my home that I don't have the right to reprogram as I see fit. There's no reason for gaming consoles to be an exception.
      - johnnyanmac 2y ago
        Sure. I 100% agree. But I wasn't arguing as a customer, I was arguing as a potential studio making a storefront on the console. Would I support that store for 5-10+ years for 3rd world countries? Would it even be profitable given exchange rates? The 1st world customers wants to keep advancing to the next generation. 3rd parties want to make money and mostly get it from 1st world countries. >artificially shorten console lifecycles by cutting off supply of newly-manufactured older consoles and new games for those consoles. It's textbook planned obsolescence. Planned obsolescence isn't to stop producing a product you no longer want to sell. If there's one thing consoles are good at, it's supporting repairs well after the next gen rolls end. Nintendo just stopped supporting the Wii U (their worst selling console) repairs due to a lack of supplies, and that is about 6 years after they EOL'd it in terms of software support. Phone/PC manufacturers should take notes. Meanwhile, hardcore gamers have been complaining about the switch performance for years. They are disappointed there was no mid gen refresh. Consumer demand very much wants companies to keep making better hardware. >There's no reason for gaming consoles to be an exception. Personally, I just don't see gaming consoles as general computing devices. They could be, but they way they are presented/marketed aren't. So I have about as much desire to reprogram on my PS4 as I do my smart fridge (which probably is running some variant of Linux underneath, albeit embedded).
immibis 2y ago
It's Apple blatantly violating the Digital Markets Act, because it thinks it is above the law (and to be fair, in the USA, it is). The EU has acknowledged this and is currently preparing a truly massive punishment for Apple. Apple, being unaccustomed to having rules apply to it, seems to be ignoring this.
- looping8 2y ago
  Apple will not react until it is punished, I think. Too big to be scared but also too big to notice that it’s actually in danger.
  - MHard 2y ago
    I think it's more likely that while the punishment might be significant it will be more profitable to continue as long as possible violating the law or at least pushing the boundaries as much as possible instead of proactively being compliant. After a court order they will know exactly where the limits are and tiptoe them as much as possible. If they proactively try to be "overcompliant" they might loose more money in the long run. It's messed up to be honest. I would prefer harsher punishments, but on the other hand if companies are scared all the time it might have a chilling economic effect so there is a balance to strike as well.
    - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
      > while the punishment might be significant it will be more profitable to continue as long as possible violating the law or at least pushing the boundaries as much as possible instead of proactively being compliant This is it. The law is ambiguous, and until someone specifies the line it makes no sense for either side to concede. Both Epic and Apple are multi-billion dollar companies taking maximalist positions. There is also the shadow component of it being an open question—given the present state of European politics—as to which will outlast the other, Cupertino or Brussels.
- DEADMINCE 2y ago
  I mean, if it's too much, they will just pull out of the EU and sell to Europeans via online only. EU citizens will still be Apple customers, just without any EU protections. To be fair, the EU is being a bit ridiculous sometimes. Apple decided not to compete in the EU because of the restrictions, and the EU seemingly wanted to penalize that decision also.
nottorp 2y ago
That the only way to get applications on your phone is going through Apple, or a gatekeeper approved by apple, is a problem in itself too. That the first "app store" approved is built on predatory free to play gaming money is also a problem.
- Unbefleckt 2y ago
  [flagged]
  - sunshinerag 2y ago
    Buy Google junk?
  - Rinzler89 2y ago
    It's a problem for those who already bought Apple and didn't know any better or didn't care. Also, not everyone likes the only available other alternative, which is Google, as while they allow sideloading, they're still a privacy nightmare ad-ware company. The mobile space really needs a shake-up from the entrenched duopoly as currently the choice are a rock or a hard place.
    - nottorp 2y ago
      Yep, it's not like you have a choice in the mobile space. You can pick one of the two bad choices.
    - DEADMINCE 2y ago
      > It's a problem for those who already bought Apple and didn't know any better or didn't care. Also, not everyone likes the only available other alternative, which is Google, as while they allow sideloading, they're still a privacy nightmare ad-ware company. If you do care about privacy and having control of your own hardware, Google is the only choice, and that should be very obvious. Not because Android is so much better, but because you have a lot of options, even using a custom rom if you want. No such option with Apple.
tgv 2y ago
"It's absurd that apps are subject to review by Apple. I know what I'm doing. I've thoroughly inspected the source code of this app that I want to install." Not even the most brilliant hacker can say so. In other words: I don't agree. Users are dumb, and need to protected from harm. I don't want the Windows virus disaster all over again, especially because this time the stakes are considerably higher. You can disagree with the fees, but for the rest my opinion is: live with the pain.
- troupo 2y ago
  > Users are dumb, and need to protected from harm. And we know for a fact that Apple despite all their claims to the contrary cannot do that.
  - ben_w 2y ago
    Indeed, but in the same way that code reviews and QA testers can't catch all defects. Perfect is the enemy of the good. Swiss cheese model: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swiss_cheese_model https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swiss_cheese_model Apple's (flawed!) review process still catches a lot of bad actors. Not all, and it has false-positives. That doesn't mean it's useless. The (legit) question is: is Apple also using security as an excuse to make more money at the expense of customer choice? Because Apple absolutely doesn't need to be the only entity performing this task — I don't trust Epic, I think their business model is predatory on gambling addiction, that doesn't mean they would be incapable of performing the same kinds of security review — and while Apple's smooshing of all the different expenses from API development to review and hosting and processing fees into a fixed sales percentage is convenient, it does make it harder for competitors to emerge for each of those separate tasks.
    - johnnyanmac 2y ago
      >Perfect is the enemy of the good. I think it goes both ways. Perfection is letting me control the hardware I bought and tweak the software to my liking. them throwing their hands up because of their motte argument of "security" doesn't resonate with me. Especially when the bailey argument is simply "we want to control everything you do". Here, it's "don't even try to achieve good, avoid bad at all costs". In my mind it's like closing a store down due to excessive theft in an area. That doesnt fix theft, it just takes away service from the honest customers.
JumpCrisscross 2y ago
> third party app stores are subject to review by apple is a problem in itself Anybody speaking with certainty on these questions should be distrusted. We don’t know. We now have a natural experiment between the EU and U.S. My suspicion is we’ll see Orwellian corporate surveillance through mandated alternative marketplaces, e.g. Facebook requiring an Eye of Sauron marketplace to get around Apple’s rules, but that’s just a hunch. We may instead see a Cambrian explosion of creativity in the EU. The question is how long we wait to measure. I think the answer is about one VC fund cycle, or 3 to 7 years. I don’t know when to start the clock—my hunch is when the first alt app store actually launches.
- ben_w 2y ago
  You're right to be distrustful. It's easy for people to read the law — or worse, opinions about the law — and mistake this for knowledge. One of the benefits to me for ChatGPT is that it gives me a stick to measure against: I know it's flawed because of how it writes code, and I know it will be that level of wrong about law too, and I also know that it's wildly better about law than I am. This makes the degree of my own ignorance much more intuitive, and reminds me that I can't just look at the text of the law and go "ah-ha!" While I suspect you're right that Facebook will attempt this, I suspect they are much like Apple when it comes to not really believing that the EU is serious, and it will explode in their faces — a few years back, Apple put in rules for advertising privacy ID, which (while acknowledging my ignorance above) didn't seem too different from what the law required, yet Facebook was very unhappy about this.
- curt15 2y ago
  Don't iPhone users in China already interface with effectively a separate app store? I bet you won't find history edu apps detailing the events of June 4 1989 there.
- talldayo 2y ago
  > We don’t know. We know: https://novayagazeta.eu/articles/2024/07/04/apple-bows-to-kremlin-pressure-to-remove-leading-vpns-from-russian-appstore-en-news https://novayagazeta.eu/articles/2024/07/04/apple-bows-to-kr... https://9to5mac.com/2021/06/15/app-store-lgbtq-censorship-countries-app-store/ https://9to5mac.com/2021/06/15/app-store-lgbtq-censorship-co... https://www.cnn.com/2024/04/19/tech/china-apple-whatspp-threads-removal-hnk-intl/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2024/04/19/tech/china-apple-whatspp-thre... Anyone speaking with certainty against these examples should be distrusted. This is our reality. You cannot deny what Apple does.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
crossroadsguy 2y ago
I want that too. But you know, there are apps in my country, banking apps, payments apps which are literally essential now as public service. They ask for every permission under the sun and don't function if you don't provide them those permissions which are often contact read, SMS read, and definitely location read - on Android. On Apple? Ah, works just fine without any permission otherwise Apple won't approve those apps. Heck, I have used TrueCaller with zero permission. I don't want to lose this freedom to be honest, as much as I despise Apple's user and other-business hostility.
isodev 2y ago
Notarization as it exists today as well. It's absurd that everyone on the planet needs to ask some corporation for permission to allow users to use their app in a normal way.

And all the apps in the third party store too.

one step at a time. Bureaucracies and regulators move slow but it seems pretty evident that the wind is at least blowing into the correct direction this time. Might take another five years or so but in a lot of regions it seems like the control over devices and software is slowly breaking down. India, Japan, SK all have similar regulation passed or on the way.

lostlogin 2y ago
> similar regulation passed or on the way. With exclusions that suit them. As you say, the wind is blowing the right way, it would be nice to see but console games get the same treatment.
- Rinzler89 2y ago
  >With exclusions that suit them. Excuse them because they want their own rules and regulations on their territory and not the default US rules that ship with Google and Apple devices. That would be like Budweiser selling their beer in Europe with the condition you have to be 21 to drink it because that's how it is where they're from.
  - olelele 2y ago
    Except we have real beer in Europe:)
- johnnyanmac 2y ago
  >it would be nice to see but console games get the same treatment. what's the appeal? consoles at best last 8 years before the new generation. These stores probably take 2-4 years to prepare properly. A dev won't use half their generation to get around a 30% fee. I think one understated part of the consoles is that that 30% does go into proper support, compared to apple/google that act more as gatekeepers. Larger studios knowing they can get on-site console developers to help debug, optimize, and maybe even fix API issues is well worth such a cut.
  - kibwen 2y ago
    > consoles at best last 8 years before the new generation. Consoles remain alive way longer in poorer regions of the world. The lock-in from console manufacturers is designed to artificially shorten console lifecycles by cutting off supply of newly-manufactured older consoles and new games for those consoles. It's textbook planned obsolescence. I don't want a single CPU in my home that I don't have the right to reprogram as I see fit. There's no reason for gaming consoles to be an exception.
    - johnnyanmac 2y ago
      Sure. I 100% agree. But I wasn't arguing as a customer, I was arguing as a potential studio making a storefront on the console. Would I support that store for 5-10+ years for 3rd world countries? Would it even be profitable given exchange rates? The 1st world customers wants to keep advancing to the next generation. 3rd parties want to make money and mostly get it from 1st world countries. >artificially shorten console lifecycles by cutting off supply of newly-manufactured older consoles and new games for those consoles. It's textbook planned obsolescence. Planned obsolescence isn't to stop producing a product you no longer want to sell. If there's one thing consoles are good at, it's supporting repairs well after the next gen rolls end. Nintendo just stopped supporting the Wii U (their worst selling console) repairs due to a lack of supplies, and that is about 6 years after they EOL'd it in terms of software support. Phone/PC manufacturers should take notes. Meanwhile, hardcore gamers have been complaining about the switch performance for years. They are disappointed there was no mid gen refresh. Consumer demand very much wants companies to keep making better hardware. >There's no reason for gaming consoles to be an exception. Personally, I just don't see gaming consoles as general computing devices. They could be, but they way they are presented/marketed aren't. So I have about as much desire to reprogram on my PS4 as I do my smart fridge (which probably is running some variant of Linux underneath, albeit embedded).

immibis 2y ago

It's Apple blatantly violating the Digital Markets Act, because it thinks it is above the law (and to be fair, in the USA, it is). The EU has acknowledged this and is currently preparing a truly massive punishment for Apple. Apple, being unaccustomed to having rules apply to it, seems to be ignoring this.

looping8 2y ago
Apple will not react until it is punished, I think. Too big to be scared but also too big to notice that it’s actually in danger.
- MHard 2y ago
  I think it's more likely that while the punishment might be significant it will be more profitable to continue as long as possible violating the law or at least pushing the boundaries as much as possible instead of proactively being compliant. After a court order they will know exactly where the limits are and tiptoe them as much as possible. If they proactively try to be "overcompliant" they might loose more money in the long run. It's messed up to be honest. I would prefer harsher punishments, but on the other hand if companies are scared all the time it might have a chilling economic effect so there is a balance to strike as well.
  - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
    > while the punishment might be significant it will be more profitable to continue as long as possible violating the law or at least pushing the boundaries as much as possible instead of proactively being compliant This is it. The law is ambiguous, and until someone specifies the line it makes no sense for either side to concede. Both Epic and Apple are multi-billion dollar companies taking maximalist positions. There is also the shadow component of it being an open question—given the present state of European politics—as to which will outlast the other, Cupertino or Brussels.
DEADMINCE 2y ago
I mean, if it's too much, they will just pull out of the EU and sell to Europeans via online only. EU citizens will still be Apple customers, just without any EU protections. To be fair, the EU is being a bit ridiculous sometimes. Apple decided not to compete in the EU because of the restrictions, and the EU seemingly wanted to penalize that decision also.

nottorp 2y ago

That the only way to get applications on your phone is going through Apple, or a gatekeeper approved by apple, is a problem in itself too. That the first "app store" approved is built on predatory free to play gaming money is also a problem.

Unbefleckt 2y ago
[flagged]
- sunshinerag 2y ago
  Buy Google junk?
- Rinzler89 2y ago
  It's a problem for those who already bought Apple and didn't know any better or didn't care. Also, not everyone likes the only available other alternative, which is Google, as while they allow sideloading, they're still a privacy nightmare ad-ware company. The mobile space really needs a shake-up from the entrenched duopoly as currently the choice are a rock or a hard place.
  - nottorp 2y ago
    Yep, it's not like you have a choice in the mobile space. You can pick one of the two bad choices.
  - DEADMINCE 2y ago
    > It's a problem for those who already bought Apple and didn't know any better or didn't care. Also, not everyone likes the only available other alternative, which is Google, as while they allow sideloading, they're still a privacy nightmare ad-ware company. If you do care about privacy and having control of your own hardware, Google is the only choice, and that should be very obvious. Not because Android is so much better, but because you have a lot of options, even using a custom rom if you want. No such option with Apple.

tgv 2y ago

"It's absurd that apps are subject to review by Apple. I know what I'm doing. I've thoroughly inspected the source code of this app that I want to install." Not even the most brilliant hacker can say so. In other words: I don't agree. Users are dumb, and need to protected from harm. I don't want the Windows virus disaster all over again, especially because this time the stakes are considerably higher. You can disagree with the fees, but for the rest my opinion is: live with the pain.

troupo 2y ago
> Users are dumb, and need to protected from harm. And we know for a fact that Apple despite all their claims to the contrary cannot do that.
- ben_w 2y ago
  Indeed, but in the same way that code reviews and QA testers can't catch all defects. Perfect is the enemy of the good. Swiss cheese model: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swiss_cheese_model https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swiss_cheese_model Apple's (flawed!) review process still catches a lot of bad actors. Not all, and it has false-positives. That doesn't mean it's useless. The (legit) question is: is Apple also using security as an excuse to make more money at the expense of customer choice? Because Apple absolutely doesn't need to be the only entity performing this task — I don't trust Epic, I think their business model is predatory on gambling addiction, that doesn't mean they would be incapable of performing the same kinds of security review — and while Apple's smooshing of all the different expenses from API development to review and hosting and processing fees into a fixed sales percentage is convenient, it does make it harder for competitors to emerge for each of those separate tasks.
  - johnnyanmac 2y ago
    >Perfect is the enemy of the good. I think it goes both ways. Perfection is letting me control the hardware I bought and tweak the software to my liking. them throwing their hands up because of their motte argument of "security" doesn't resonate with me. Especially when the bailey argument is simply "we want to control everything you do". Here, it's "don't even try to achieve good, avoid bad at all costs". In my mind it's like closing a store down due to excessive theft in an area. That doesnt fix theft, it just takes away service from the honest customers.

JumpCrisscross 2y ago

> third party app stores are subject to review by apple is a problem in itself Anybody speaking with certainty on these questions should be distrusted. We don’t know. We now have a natural experiment between the EU and U.S. My suspicion is we’ll see Orwellian corporate surveillance through mandated alternative marketplaces, e.g. Facebook requiring an Eye of Sauron marketplace to get around Apple’s rules, but that’s just a hunch. We may instead see a Cambrian explosion of creativity in the EU. The question is how long we wait to measure. I think the answer is about one VC fund cycle, or 3 to 7 years. I don’t know when to start the clock—my hunch is when the first alt app store actually launches.

ben_w 2y ago
You're right to be distrustful. It's easy for people to read the law — or worse, opinions about the law — and mistake this for knowledge. One of the benefits to me for ChatGPT is that it gives me a stick to measure against: I know it's flawed because of how it writes code, and I know it will be that level of wrong about law too, and I also know that it's wildly better about law than I am. This makes the degree of my own ignorance much more intuitive, and reminds me that I can't just look at the text of the law and go "ah-ha!" While I suspect you're right that Facebook will attempt this, I suspect they are much like Apple when it comes to not really believing that the EU is serious, and it will explode in their faces — a few years back, Apple put in rules for advertising privacy ID, which (while acknowledging my ignorance above) didn't seem too different from what the law required, yet Facebook was very unhappy about this.
curt15 2y ago
Don't iPhone users in China already interface with effectively a separate app store? I bet you won't find history edu apps detailing the events of June 4 1989 there.
talldayo 2y ago
> We don’t know. We know: https://novayagazeta.eu/articles/2024/07/04/apple-bows-to-kremlin-pressure-to-remove-leading-vpns-from-russian-appstore-en-news https://novayagazeta.eu/articles/2024/07/04/apple-bows-to-kr... https://9to5mac.com/2021/06/15/app-store-lgbtq-censorship-countries-app-store/ https://9to5mac.com/2021/06/15/app-store-lgbtq-censorship-co... https://www.cnn.com/2024/04/19/tech/china-apple-whatspp-threads-removal-hnk-intl/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2024/04/19/tech/china-apple-whatspp-thre... Anyone speaking with certainty against these examples should be distrusted. This is our reality. You cannot deny what Apple does.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

crossroadsguy 2y ago

I want that too. But you know, there are apps in my country, banking apps, payments apps which are literally essential now as public service. They ask for every permission under the sun and don't function if you don't provide them those permissions which are often contact read, SMS read, and definitely location read - on Android. On Apple? Ah, works just fine without any permission otherwise Apple won't approve those apps. Heck, I have used TrueCaller with zero permission. I don't want to lose this freedom to be honest, as much as I despise Apple's user and other-business hostility.

isodev 2y ago

Notarization as it exists today as well. It's absurd that everyone on the planet needs to ask some corporation for permission to allow users to use their app in a normal way.