5 ms·

> should have the right to choose a locked-down ecosystem if that's what they want You will continue to have that right. Simply don't install other app stores

by stale2002 2y ago

> should have the right to choose a locked-down ecosystem if that's what they want You will continue to have that right. Simply don't install other app stores. What you won't be able to do is force other people to do what you want them to do, with their iPhones. It has nothing to do with you choosing what you want to do with your own phone. Instead, you want to force restrictions onto other people's phones. > this balance don't seem at all designed to help consumers It's designed to give those who want it, the ability to control all phones that they own. Few people would have a problem with you being given the option to lock down your phone if that's what you want.

arrosenberg 2y ago
> What you won't be able to do is force other people to do what you want them to do, with their iPhones. A bit of a nit, but what they won't be able to do is use their market power to lock competitors out or extract monopolistic taxes for access to their large segment of the mobile market. It has nothing to do with consumers per se - we could be back here in 3 years because all of the app stores have formed a cartel to decide the vig for apps, same way Amazon and Apple did for e-books.
- halostatue 2y ago
  Amazon and Apple did not decide such a thing. Apple and the publishers had worked out an agreement to raise the price of ebooks to be closer to that of new releases to counter the monopolistic cheap-to-the-point-of-failing-authors approach from Amazon. The US Government got involved in that agreement and declared it illegal because it hurt Amazon's bottom line…and the publishing industry is in a much worse situation with Amazon controlling even more of the income than ever, while now diverting revenue to shitty LLM-publishers and away from humans who try to write things that people want to read. Basically, that decision by the government was wrong, and we’re all suffering for it. Upcoming decisions and the DMA are different, but they are making many of the same mistakes as the US Government did with the publishing agreement, in that these intervention will: - reduce overall security on devices that must be more secure than personal computers because they often act as payment devices, personal IDs, and other matters (this is not guaranteed, but many of the moves being advocated are going to lead to bad actors getting to pretend that they are equivalent to the operating system, or provide access to Secure Enclave data in ways that encourage large criminal and nation state attacks on the ecosystem) - reduce overall payment security and convenience for real people (you think that cancelling a NYT subscription is hard, let Tim Sweeney design a payment flow and it will take a personal visit to Epic to cancel a subscription, and even then it will take more time than it should) Everyone focuses on the 30%. It should be lower; there should be wider access and less gatekeeping‡. But if you want it to be zero, start taking on the PlayStation, Xbox, and Nintendo Switch monopolies, too as they charge as much and sometimes more. ‡ I think that Apple (and probably Google) need to get over their American prudishness. This would require having better categorization and parental controls that could be enabled by device owners and even providing applications ways of applying parental controls (let Tumblr bring its adult-oriented content back, but enable the Tumblr app to apply parental controls via an API). There are other changes that I would like to see, but absolutely none of them involve letting Tim Sweeney / Epic get involved in taking payment details, because I trust him far less than I trust Tim Cook / Apple (or even Google).
  - stale2002 2y ago
    > Apple and the publishers had worked out an agreement to raise the price of ebooks to be closer to that of new releases to counter the monopolistic cheap-to-the-point-of-failing-authors approach from Amazon. Thats called anti-competive behavior to raise prices. Price dumping isn't a thing. Its basically not illegal, and is instead something that the US government, and its population, want to encourage. I am sure that there are some outdated economics textbooks that put out this hypothetical of the extremely rare "bad kind" of price dumping, and one or 2 long irrelevant court cases. But these days, its basically not a bad thing. Complaints about price dumping are almost never done in good faith. Instead, they are done by monopolistic entities that want to screw over customers by illegally coordinating price increases. > Basically, that decision by the government was wrong, and we’re all suffering for it. I am going to say that the monopolistic group of sellers who were trying to raise prices was wrong. And the law supports me. > But if you want it to be zero, start taking on the PlayStation, Xbox, and Nintendo Switch monopolies, too as they charge as much and sometimes more. Or, instead of that, we can use the government to force it to be zero in whatever ways that we can, even if we don't effect other markets. Those other markets, while maybe deserving of some scrutiny, are smaller than the smartphone market. Therefore, it is perfectly reasonable to care about the much larger and more important market, and to make those fees 0. > letting Tim Sweeney / Epic get involved in taking payment details, because I trust him far less than I trust Tim Cook / Apple Then use your consumer rights to not install the epic app store. And leave other people's phone's alone.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
lolinder 2y ago
> Simply don't install other app stores. This is what everyone says, but we know that's not how it will work. Epic doesn't want their own store because they want to put their stuff in both places—Epic wants their own store because they want to bypass Apple and Google entirely. We're going to see a proliferation of app stores the way we've seen a proliferation of streaming platforms, with apps only being available in the Epic Store or the Apple Store or the Amazon Store or the Meta Store, and it's not going to be fun for anyone to navigate.
- jncfhnb 2y ago
  And yet people just use steam and they’re fine.
  - lolinder 2y ago
    No, people use Steam and also have to install the Ubisoft launcher, the Epic store, the Paradox launcher, the EA store... PC gaming is a good example of why the complaints about the 30% tax are overblown, but it's also a terrific example of what happens to consumers when a platform isn't able to vertically control every aspect of the distribution experience. It's not great.
    - stavros 2y ago
      I like it. I vote with my wallet and don't buy things that aren't on Steam, because I don't care enough about yet another store. Sometimes I do care enough about it, and I'll buy things from GOG, which is just the way I want it. I want to support the companies I want to support, not the companies I'm being forced to support because I bought a piece of hardware from them.
    - jncfhnb 2y ago
      You buy it on steam though. A tiny fraction of titles are not available on steam. I would 1000% prefer the experience of steam over the App Store. Heck I would prefer the Epic Game Store.
- _aavaa_ 2y ago
joeblubaugh 2y ago
> Simply don't install other app stores. This won’t be an option for many people. Once there’s an Adobe App Store you’re going to have to get on board with their bullshit to use the software. Look at the Windows game stores situation.
- _aavaa_ 2y ago
  > Adobe App Store You’re describing a website with a purchase button, the exact situation we have on all non-mobile devices. > Look at the Windows game stores situation. Yes and look at their competition: GoG, Steam, Humble Bundle, Epic Games, Origin, etc. Don’t like Windows game stores, no problem just use a competitor.
  - lolinder 2y ago
    > GoG, Steam, Humble Bundle, Epic Games, Origin, etc. Don’t like Windows game stores, no problem just use a competitor. This is literally their point. Windows gaming is a convoluted mess of stores that you have to juggle, a far cry from the experience Apple has been trying to offer to consumers.
    - _aavaa_ 2y ago
      Having to click, once, between different stores if you really care about a game is not some convoluted process. And analogies to streaming services don’t hold up for a few reasons: 1. There’s no ongoing cost to have an account at the each, purchases are one time. 2. Games do not leave services the way shows leave streaming sites.
      - joeblubaugh 2y ago
        > Games do not leave services the way shows leave streaming sites This already isn’t accurate, and it’s getting less so all the time.
        _aavaa_ 2y ago
itscodingtime 2y ago
He will lose the sense of security from interacting with other iPhone users which Apple’s walled garden currently provides. The existence of third party appstores on iOS mean I can no longer be sure that an app on an another person iPhone is safe. There’s 100 percent going to be a zero day delivered through these third party Appstores which will spread to iOS devices without any third party AppStore’s installed. This whole situation seems Kafkaesque. Apple sold billions of iOS devices because party because of the experience they were offering. People like me sort that experience out. Now people saying are that no, that experience was anti consumer. There’s less choice in the mobile smart phone space because of this. I have no idea why people want iOS to be Android when there’s already Android. And apparently Google’s Android model isn’t good enough either.
- kalleboo 2y ago
  You are VASTLY overestimating how strong the App Store vetting process is. The majority of the security comes from strong sandboxing in the OS, which also applies to apps installed through third-party stores (or Xcode, etc)

arrosenberg 2y ago

> What you won't be able to do is force other people to do what you want them to do, with their iPhones. A bit of a nit, but what they won't be able to do is use their market power to lock competitors out or extract monopolistic taxes for access to their large segment of the mobile market. It has nothing to do with consumers per se - we could be back here in 3 years because all of the app stores have formed a cartel to decide the vig for apps, same way Amazon and Apple did for e-books.

halostatue 2y ago
Amazon and Apple did not decide such a thing. Apple and the publishers had worked out an agreement to raise the price of ebooks to be closer to that of new releases to counter the monopolistic cheap-to-the-point-of-failing-authors approach from Amazon. The US Government got involved in that agreement and declared it illegal because it hurt Amazon's bottom line…and the publishing industry is in a much worse situation with Amazon controlling even more of the income than ever, while now diverting revenue to shitty LLM-publishers and away from humans who try to write things that people want to read. Basically, that decision by the government was wrong, and we’re all suffering for it. Upcoming decisions and the DMA are different, but they are making many of the same mistakes as the US Government did with the publishing agreement, in that these intervention will: - reduce overall security on devices that must be more secure than personal computers because they often act as payment devices, personal IDs, and other matters (this is not guaranteed, but many of the moves being advocated are going to lead to bad actors getting to pretend that they are equivalent to the operating system, or provide access to Secure Enclave data in ways that encourage large criminal and nation state attacks on the ecosystem) - reduce overall payment security and convenience for real people (you think that cancelling a NYT subscription is hard, let Tim Sweeney design a payment flow and it will take a personal visit to Epic to cancel a subscription, and even then it will take more time than it should) Everyone focuses on the 30%. It should be lower; there should be wider access and less gatekeeping‡. But if you want it to be zero, start taking on the PlayStation, Xbox, and Nintendo Switch monopolies, too as they charge as much and sometimes more. ‡ I think that Apple (and probably Google) need to get over their American prudishness. This would require having better categorization and parental controls that could be enabled by device owners and even providing applications ways of applying parental controls (let Tumblr bring its adult-oriented content back, but enable the Tumblr app to apply parental controls via an API). There are other changes that I would like to see, but absolutely none of them involve letting Tim Sweeney / Epic get involved in taking payment details, because I trust him far less than I trust Tim Cook / Apple (or even Google).
- stale2002 2y ago
  > Apple and the publishers had worked out an agreement to raise the price of ebooks to be closer to that of new releases to counter the monopolistic cheap-to-the-point-of-failing-authors approach from Amazon. Thats called anti-competive behavior to raise prices. Price dumping isn't a thing. Its basically not illegal, and is instead something that the US government, and its population, want to encourage. I am sure that there are some outdated economics textbooks that put out this hypothetical of the extremely rare "bad kind" of price dumping, and one or 2 long irrelevant court cases. But these days, its basically not a bad thing. Complaints about price dumping are almost never done in good faith. Instead, they are done by monopolistic entities that want to screw over customers by illegally coordinating price increases. > Basically, that decision by the government was wrong, and we’re all suffering for it. I am going to say that the monopolistic group of sellers who were trying to raise prices was wrong. And the law supports me. > But if you want it to be zero, start taking on the PlayStation, Xbox, and Nintendo Switch monopolies, too as they charge as much and sometimes more. Or, instead of that, we can use the government to force it to be zero in whatever ways that we can, even if we don't effect other markets. Those other markets, while maybe deserving of some scrutiny, are smaller than the smartphone market. Therefore, it is perfectly reasonable to care about the much larger and more important market, and to make those fees 0. > letting Tim Sweeney / Epic get involved in taking payment details, because I trust him far less than I trust Tim Cook / Apple Then use your consumer rights to not install the epic app store. And leave other people's phone's alone.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

lolinder 2y ago

> Simply don't install other app stores. This is what everyone says, but we know that's not how it will work. Epic doesn't want their own store because they want to put their stuff in both places—Epic wants their own store because they want to bypass Apple and Google entirely. We're going to see a proliferation of app stores the way we've seen a proliferation of streaming platforms, with apps only being available in the Epic Store or the Apple Store or the Amazon Store or the Meta Store, and it's not going to be fun for anyone to navigate.

jncfhnb 2y ago
And yet people just use steam and they’re fine.
- lolinder 2y ago
  No, people use Steam and also have to install the Ubisoft launcher, the Epic store, the Paradox launcher, the EA store... PC gaming is a good example of why the complaints about the 30% tax are overblown, but it's also a terrific example of what happens to consumers when a platform isn't able to vertically control every aspect of the distribution experience. It's not great.
  - stavros 2y ago
    I like it. I vote with my wallet and don't buy things that aren't on Steam, because I don't care enough about yet another store. Sometimes I do care enough about it, and I'll buy things from GOG, which is just the way I want it. I want to support the companies I want to support, not the companies I'm being forced to support because I bought a piece of hardware from them.
  - jncfhnb 2y ago
    You buy it on steam though. A tiny fraction of titles are not available on steam. I would 1000% prefer the experience of steam over the App Store. Heck I would prefer the Epic Game Store.
_aavaa_ 2y ago

joeblubaugh 2y ago

> Simply don't install other app stores. This won’t be an option for many people. Once there’s an Adobe App Store you’re going to have to get on board with their bullshit to use the software. Look at the Windows game stores situation.

_aavaa_ 2y ago
> Adobe App Store You’re describing a website with a purchase button, the exact situation we have on all non-mobile devices. > Look at the Windows game stores situation. Yes and look at their competition: GoG, Steam, Humble Bundle, Epic Games, Origin, etc. Don’t like Windows game stores, no problem just use a competitor.
- lolinder 2y ago
  > GoG, Steam, Humble Bundle, Epic Games, Origin, etc. Don’t like Windows game stores, no problem just use a competitor. This is literally their point. Windows gaming is a convoluted mess of stores that you have to juggle, a far cry from the experience Apple has been trying to offer to consumers.
  - _aavaa_ 2y ago
    Having to click, once, between different stores if you really care about a game is not some convoluted process. And analogies to streaming services don’t hold up for a few reasons: 1. There’s no ongoing cost to have an account at the each, purchases are one time. 2. Games do not leave services the way shows leave streaming sites.
    - joeblubaugh 2y ago
      > Games do not leave services the way shows leave streaming sites This already isn’t accurate, and it’s getting less so all the time.
      - _aavaa_ 2y ago

itscodingtime 2y ago

He will lose the sense of security from interacting with other iPhone users which Apple’s walled garden currently provides. The existence of third party appstores on iOS mean I can no longer be sure that an app on an another person iPhone is safe. There’s 100 percent going to be a zero day delivered through these third party Appstores which will spread to iOS devices without any third party AppStore’s installed. This whole situation seems Kafkaesque. Apple sold billions of iOS devices because party because of the experience they were offering. People like me sort that experience out. Now people saying are that no, that experience was anti consumer. There’s less choice in the mobile smart phone space because of this. I have no idea why people want iOS to be Android when there’s already Android. And apparently Google’s Android model isn’t good enough either.

kalleboo 2y ago
You are VASTLY overestimating how strong the App Store vetting process is. The majority of the security comes from strong sandboxing in the OS, which also applies to apps installed through third-party stores (or Xcode, etc)