Hacker News Reader

Comment by roenxi | Hacker News Reader

These things are true; and also a significant component of Apple's value proposition. An Apple customer can be sure they will:

1) Never need to learn what a "sideload" is

2) Never be exposed to Apps that havn't been vetted by a trustworthy party (in this case Apple)

Apple is taking the opportunity to milk app developers, but they've done an effective job of positioning the milking process so that it is done in the user's interests. It is quite possible that things like this 30% App Store tax are one of the reasons why iPhones remain so prominent.

View on HN

>2) Never be exposed to Apps that havn't been vetted by a trustworthy party (in this case Apple)

And yet, even after being vetted malware still gets in

https://www.bankinfosecurity.com/apple-battles-app-store-mal...

I see this a lot, and to be honest, this 'Apple products are free from malware' meme has been carried on as long as I can remember in one form or another since the early Mac days. The amount of people that used to say they used Macs because 'they didn't have viruses' is about the same as the people who say 'I use iphones because Apple makes sure I'm safe'.

It's been Apple's marketing strategy for a long time, despite being slightly exaggerated, early Macs did have viruses and yes, malware makes its way onto the app store.

But Apple's marketing strategy sure has been working a long time.

And yet, even after being vetted malware still gets in

I don't remember ever seeing Apple promise that 100% of apps will be 100% safe 100% of the time. Can you provide a link?

Apple's review process is done by people. People make mistakes. Things get through when bad people are trying to hide that they're doing bad things. But I'll take Apple's 1-in-a-million mistake environment over the anything goes Android environment.

> These things are true; and also a significant component of Apple's value proposition

You're describing the value of an app store, not the App Store. So the problem is not the value proposition, the problem is Apple's monopoly on this value proposition. It is why we can't have a Google iOS App Store, Microsoft iOS App store etc. list from which the user can pick, which would completely satisfy the convenience and peace of mind criterion, would increase competition regarding the cuts, vetting quality, curation quality etc.

a Cydia App Store

> An Apple customer can be sure they will: (1) Never need to learn what a "sideload" is, and (2) never be exposed to Apps that haven't been vetted by a trustworthy party.

But Apple customers can be sure of that anyway--just don't sideload apps. Anything essential is going to want to be in the App Store, in order to reach customers.

> Anything essential is going to want to be in the App Store, in order to reach customers.

The logical extension of that argument is that the Hey app would still be in the App Store and still be facing this exact problem.

Hey is a tiny app used by a few people; it's not essential.

If Hey became a cultural phenomenon, I'd bet that Apple would magically reinterpret their rules. This is exactly the purpose of having competition.

>If they became a cultural phenomenon I'd bet that Apple would magically reinterpret their rules.

Please trust me on this but, even if your app is far and away the #1 grossing app on the app store and hundreds of media outlets have literally used the term "cultural phenomenon" to describe it, Apple is still a huge stickler on the rules and it still takes forever (and a lot of stress) to get approved, every single update.

This applies even if your CEO has Tim Cook's personal cellphone number and talked to him about the issues with app store approval a week before, in person.

Yes, but Apple would have a lot less power if developers could threaten (even theoretically) to go around the App Store.

Even now, major apps do have power. Unlike Hey, Netflix and Amazon are at least still in the App Store, and Amazon is even allowed to sell video rentals through their app without going through Apple's payment system: https://www.theverge.com/2020/4/1/21203294/amazon-prime-vide...

Edit: My posts probably read like contradictions. I see it like this: (1) The safe and vetted App Store is a part of the iPhone's appeal, which (2) Apple is currently enforcing through anti-competitive tactics. If Apple wants to maintain the App Store as a product differentiator (which of course they do), they should have to do the work to keep developers happy. Where "keep happy" means very basic things like not taking a full 30% of their revenue.

Netflix and Amazon Prime Video as digital video content providers are specifically exempted from the IAP rules according to section 3.1.3(a) of the App Store review guidelines.

Sure, that's the justification, but Apple wrote those rules. It's completely arbitrary in practice.

I thought John Gruber laid this out pretty well: https://daringfireball.net/2020/06/hey_app_store_rejection_f...

> But Apple customers can be sure of that anyway--just don't sideload apps.

Well, no. At some point they'd need to know what it is to decide if they wanted it or not. At some point they'd encounter an App that isn't in the App store and have to figure out sideloading. We've got a whole heap of people commenting here today who give off a distinct "I want to bypass the App Store" vibe. User hat on, I'd rather they were forced to use it.

I don't think there is enough reflecting here on just how critical a phone is. At the extremes, the US government sometimes targets predator drones based on phone GPS. I suspect an enormous number of phones contain compromising pictures. Phones contain detailed logs of where I am, who I'm talking to, and potentially access to actual records of what was said.

I really don't want to be in a situation where 'Wowfunhappy' is executing arbitrary unknown code on a phone owned by me or my family. I don't want Google and Facebook browsing through and indexing this stuff either. Apple isn't even a good gatekeeper, but they are much better than nothing.

> I don't think there is enough reflecting here on just how critical a phone is.

But see, I'm think that's exactly what I'm doing--the app store gives China an easy way to take safety apps from protestors. A phone is too important for it to be out of the user's control.

I understand the security implications, but when I weigh the societal issues, Apple's model seems much more dangerous.

So the solution to not making people want to sideload is to not let anybody sideload? I hate solving problems by destroying value. It's like solving the real problem of wealth inequality by taking billions from the rich and dropping it in the ocean.

Maybe... Just putting this out there. Just maybe... Instead of having your phone double as an ad delivery platform, and actually fully embracing Open hardware/software standards, and making sure the innards of your phone's operating principles are absolutely visible to you, you wouldn't have to trust your safety to people that look at you like cattle.

Imagine a world, where your Telco or anyone else for that matter can't remotely tell your phone to turn on. A world where you and only you have ultimate control over your phone, and where instead of millions of engineer hours going into making your phone convenient for developers to utilize, it is instead made easier for the user to actually understand.

That is the world I want to see. Hell I want to be part of making. I'll be damned if I can figure out how to make it work with our Market's current optimization function.

I mean, I agree with you. I'm right there with you. But you and I both know that that model won't work for most people. They'll be in the same place they are today—having to trust when other people tell them their phone is safe.

Incidentally, to the last paragraph, you can help make it work—go work on Linux mobile UX/UI. Things like the PinePhone and the Purism Librem 5 exist, and there's a market for them, they're just missing a polished user experience.

It's not the developers that are being milked up, it's the consumers. The 30% tax is transferred over to you by having a higher price when buying from the IAP.

No one "eats up" that loss.

> 2) Never be exposed to Apps that havn't been vetted by a trustworthy party (in this case Apple)

My understanding is that neither major mobile app store has done a great job of vetting.

The app store is quite a bit better at it...neither is perfect but its no comparison.

Yes,

https://www.digitalinformationworld.com/2020/04/fleeceware-a...

iOS is the minority phone OS. It's prominent because it's not been intentionally commoditized as Android was.

I wonder what people think Apple vets apps for.

I assume they vet the apps to make sure there is no other revenue inside the app that Apple is not getting its tax on.

Well it’s ultimately rather arbitrary isn’t it?

Apple should then rent their hardware out then or provide long-term leasing. If Apple is selling devices for ownership, then the device should truly be owned. I would rather they be honest, and lease the device out (even for a fixed sum for an unlimited period of time), than to claim ownership.

They’ve been doing that[1] with iPhones for a while now.

[1]: https://www.apple.com/shop/iphone/iphone-upgrade-program

Reply on news.ycombinator.com