Hacker News Reader

Comment by iguy | Hacker News Reader

Not OP, but I share the desire for convenience.

This convenience is only available to me because there is a large customer base which companies can't access any other way.

They have varying reasons for wanting an iphone, each of which alone would not (I think) form a big enough pool to persuade companies to listen. Or the privacy conscious are tempted to make an exception when (like OP) they badly need something to work right now... or just don't have time to vet every company... and divided we fall.

And I'm happy to pay for this. I probably spent double what I would have paid for an android phone. I have not spent close to that much again on apps. But the difference between $5 and $10 inside the app store is (for me) much smaller than the hurdle of having to go to some other dodgy payment gateway & give them my card.

View on HN

And if side loading was possible, what makes you think that your App Store experience would suffer?

It wouldn't, but eventually somehow is going to find a way to sneakily install apps on my grandma's phone that are no good. I like the current experience because it keeps the really bad stuff out.

I guess my claim is that, if side-loading were common, then lots of apps which now play by the rules would (eventually) be replaced by ones that don't.

There are lots of iphone apps from companies I would never trust to install a real app on my computer. I'm glad they exist, and are so firmly kept under control. (And I'm sure their makers grumble about this.)

I also buy lots of things from companies I would never trust with my credit card details.

No one would take away your right not to trust such companies your card details. Unfortunately, you are OK with the fact that some people can't exercise their will to trust said companies and use their software, even if they badly need it.

Different rules lead to different ecosystems. My claim here is that, under anything-goes rules, some options I like having would probably go away.

And while I understand the temptation to complain about a 30% cut, it's not so obvious to me that sellers would make more money under anything-goes rules, in a lower-trust ecosystem.

My problem with Apple and iOS is not a 30% cut at all. It's the push notifications policy and monopoly on app distribution. I want apps that run in the background. I want apps that have reliable and fast push notifications without those recently imposed restrictions on the only type of notifications that worked well in iOS 13 [1] (VoIP ones), etc.

It's my device! If i want to run some app in the background, I'm OK if it uses battery faster. If Apple wants to show how they care for the battery life of my device, they should show me the warning and stats, which app costs me what, not cut off my ability to run the app in the background at all.

[1] https://www.macrumors.com/2019/08/06/ios-13-voip-background-...

I guess I'm happy they established a strong norm early on that apps don't get to run in the background. This was a big change from PC apps. But I agree they could now offer a bit more flexibility. (And demand that, if I refuse permission, all other functionality must still work. As they do for many features.)

Oh boy. Back in the 90s multitasking in Windows and OS/2 was such a HUGE life-improving step forward from a single-task DOS that I'm SHOCKED that anyone would be so happy to put their old shackles on again. First iPhones couldn't even play music in the background, can you imagine?

But there was also the need to re-install the OS because everything you added somehow got its fingers into everything else until it was impossibly slow. Even if you were unusually cautious about how many toolbars to install.

Phone apps were a new art form, quite unlike 90s programs. Both had serious resource constraints, but trying out a badly written iphone app couldn't result in being unable to make a phone call that afternoon.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com