Hacker News Reader

Comment by lukifer | Hacker News Reader

There is a moral/philosophical connection to free speech and the app store pseudo-monopolies (code as speech), but it also happens to be very concrete in Apple's case: you literally cannot tell customers through your app what other alternatives might be used to pay you.

(And before someone comments about how this doesn't conflict with the 1st Amendment, you are obviously correct; but free speech is as much a societal value as a legal construct, and is not limited to the Bill of Rights as its sole champion.)

View on HN

You view this as a bad thing. As a consumer, I view it as a good thing. I’m not sure if folks remember what “apps on mobile” were like before Apple came along, but it was the goddamn Wild West. The fact that it’s walled in, that I’m not going to get pwned, that my parents won’t (and won’t be tempted to by the promise of an extra $0.99 saving) is to my mind, a good thing.

If all this competition that the article talked about was such a good thing, apps would be cheaper on Android, and I, as a consumer, would switch. Fact is, the fact that Tinder et al are now bypassing Google’s mechanisms isn’t a good thing to me at all. It’s more the reason to stay on iOS.

The article writer is pissed he can’t get access to me without paying Apple’s toll, but what he doesn’t understand is that I am like it like that.

If Apple allowed side-loading tomorrow, their curated App Store wouldn't disappear. You would absolutely have the choice to only download software from the iOS App Store, where Apple is checking everything for you.

I don't oppose the App Store existing. I use it myself, and it's generally a great experience for the reasons you describe.

However, I don't think that a link that says "Click here to start your Netflix subscription" threatens that experience in the slightest; it's only a threat to Apple's revenue model. (While there are legitimate concerns about fraud/phishing/etc, that can be reviewed on a content level by Apple, as they already do in other respects.)

There are perhaps arguments against allowing side-loading; even if the process is cumbersome for non-techies, there remains a "dancing bunnies" [0] problem that might lead to malware on Grandma's phone (or, just a very poor software experience).

But even there, I'm not convinced that there isn't a reasonable tradeoff. While the needs for macOS and iOS are clearly different, the former has a very reasonable default that allows unsigned executables, while discouraging them to non-technical users, and giving a great experience buying and installing software through the App Store. (Strictly speaking, one can pseudo-sideload on iOS via XCode if one has the source, but at the cost of $99!)

I think a more reasonable policy might be requiring all apps to be code-signed (so malware and pirated apps can be shut down), but allow side-loading with a great number of scary warnings. Most people will still prefer the App Store experience, and as with the Mac App Store, the increased audience will usually be worth the 30% cut (which, by the way, if faced with "competition" from side-loading, may be pressured down into a more reasonable 10-20% range.)

Whether it's Apple, Nintendo, or Amazon, any platform that makes itself a mandatory middle-man between third-party buyers and sellers is rent-seeking extraction at best, and a net economic loss at worst (preventing value-creating relationships from existing at all). In my opinion, smart and reasonable regulations of such marketplace platforms would be a win for both economic growth and personal freedom.

[0] https://blog.codinghorror.com/the-dancing-bunnies-problem/

> but free speech is as much a societal value as a legal construct, and is not limited to the Bill of Rights as its sole champion.)

Where, in the US, is the requirement that everyone has to let anyone say anything enshrined? AFAIK, it's not, and is (very) often confused with the Bill of Rights version.

It's enshrined in you and me. :) Law is not the only mechanism for upholding cultural values and norms.

One important distinction is that free expression is not limited to the "right to say anything"; it also includes the right to listen to the expression of others. See, for example, the rich history of librarians resisting turning over records of who reads what books, which could result in a chilling effect where people are scared to read controversial material.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com