Hacker News Reader

> Apple can choose which 3rd parties are able to allow installs (and hopefully some regulation prevents this from being anti-competitive).

What regulation could ever make Apple behave nicely to sub-stores who are eating their lunch? I doubt there would ever be a truly effective way to do that.

Instead, why not just tell Apple to allow side-loading (like basically every other consumer-grade OS has since the history of computers began)? If they want to include a 3rd-party app store in the Apple App Store, that's fine. If they don't, also fine. But I should be able to run whatever programs I want

Apple definitely needs to loosen their guidelines, wanting to review third party games on gaming services is an exact example of a dumb guideline poorly applied.

But allowing third party stores would be terrible for users and developers. Security is a huge issue, but other reasons include:

1) Splitting app search across different stores hurting discoverability.

2) Different payment systems making purchasing more difficult.

3) Different subscription and purchasing rules making it harder for customers to refund purchases or cancel subscriptions, reducing consumer confidence in buying on the platform.

4) Lowered app review standards letting even more spam-ware, malware and fraud-ware on the platform, hurting sales for legit developers.

5) Developers forced to spend more time and money hosting their apps on more stores to maximize their reach.

The security of the platform and frictionless purchase system are Apples primary responsibilities. If they lose control of them then iPhone has little that is better than Android.

Android has had sideloading as well as alternative app stores enabled by it since the beginning. These problems don't really exist. You'd still want to publish on Google Play by default, but if your app hurts Google's business, morals, feelings, or whatever else, you have the option of distributing it using whatever means you see fit — like an apk with a built-in updater on your website.

In other words, being rejected from the App Store is an end of the world situation, while being rejected from Google Play is not quite.

Google Play is a dumpster fire compared to the App Store, and despite alternative app stores as competition still charges 30%.

As opposed to Apple, Google doesn't mandate that your payments go through the store. You could as well do your own payment processing.

Right, Apple has a unified purchasing system that makes the entire purchasing process (including subscription management and app refunds) easier and more trustworthy for iPhone users.

Google also offers that. My point is that choice is good.

My point is allowing alternate stores means allowing more malware, fraud-ware and worse purchasing experiences for platform customers.

Allowing a web browser also means allowing phishing and "worse purchasing experience".

Again, if a company wants The Google Experience™, it can use it for 30% of its income. If it does not, it's free to use whatever payment provider it wants.

Can you elaborate on how a browser or a video streaming app are more "safe and consistent" than a game streaming app?

I think there is nothing wrong with a game streaming app.

But apple should probably set rules for which third party apps are allowed to download and execute third party code. Third party app stores would work differently on a technical level then a game streaming app which I agree with you are like a browser or video app. Game streaming apps however seem to be gated from the same “no third party stores” rules

> But if Hey Email or ClassPass or anyone else doesn't like Apples offerings, they can go to a 3rd party store and be available there.

I absolutely do not want that to happen. This is no way is an actual benefit to anyone. If Hey or ClassPass was relegated to some other app store on iOS, it may as well not exist.

> This is no way is an actual benefit to anyone.

It's an actual benefit to anybody who is willing to jump through one tiny hoop to get the app they want, and an actual benefit to the developers of those apps.

The result is that Apple has to actually be competitive with its App Store. A lot of these BS policies wouldn't last if they had to be competitive.

98% of their policies aren’t BS, but integral to the value of the iPhone for both consumers and developers. Ripping down that framework because of the few rules that are counterproductive is foolish.

Why would people be willing to pay $99/year for Hey but not willing to download a seperate app store?

Very, very few people want to pay $99/year for Hey. Their needs don’t represent the needs of iPhone users in general.

And if Hey is typical of the vast majority of SAAS services, they pay affiliate fees and other marketing fees based on a percentage of sales to third parties that promote their service. So why not play Apple their 15% for a seamless in-app purchase system to add new users with?

> So why not play Apple their 15% for a seamless in-app purchase system to add new users with?

Hey has responded very specifically to this https://hey.com/apple/iap/

Their main objection to this is that they want to own the relationship with the customer. They want to be able to issue a refund or account credit or discount or hardship exceptions, which you cannot do through Apple's App Store.

I can’t do any of that if I sell products through Walmart, Target, or any retailer but it’s still worth it. I don’t think Hey is quantifying the benefits appropriately.

That is possible, but right now Hey does not have the ability to weigh its options at all and do what’s best for its business.

If they had their app distributed elsewhere and they were losing customers, they could choose to work with apple, but right now they have no choice. At the same time, apple would have to earn its relationship with developers like target and Walmart have to do with their suppliers.

Nevertheless, Hey should be able to weigh those benefits on their own and make their own choice as to whether or not it's worthwhile.

There are plenty of companies and individuals that have chosen to direct-sell rather than offer products through other retailers. It's a choice they can make, foolish or not.

I've purchased many products from local retailers that contain explicit instructions from the manufacturer to NOT contact the retailer if there are any issues, but to contact them directly. So it seems it is possible.

Yea, but how many people will do anything but return it to the retailer if there are issues? I know I wouldn't contact them directly.

I think we need to be creative about who could run these app stores too. Amazon could theoretically have an App Store in its main app everyone already has installed. Disney could run a store for kids games. Lots of trusted brands can be viable safe distribution channels

“Trusted” doesn’t make them secure.

This is a false dichotomy. The reality is that having one app store to fit everyone's needs at the same time makes us less secure.

If I'm a parent, I would love to be able to enable an app store that sells human-curated child-friendly apps with no advertising and strict controls over tracking. I'd like that store to be a heck of a lot stricter than Apple's is.

Apple can't offer me that level of quality, because the same store needs to serve multiple demographics. Sure, they can flag some apps as mature, but the fact that they're balancing that distinction to try and come up with a set of standards that will be acceptable to everyone across multiple continents means it's very difficult for them to make gut-level instinctual choices or take hardline positions on what they consider acceptable.

The same is true for security. Apple has standards about what info apps are allowed to access, and they'll throw apps out for requesting permissions that are unnecessary. But I'm going to be honest -- their standards are lower than mine are. If I was building a privacy-respecting app store, it would be way stricter than Apple's.

Having choices gives you the freedom to opt into stores that are strictly regulated and curated on a quality level that Apple will never be able to approach. No single app store that's designed for everyone will ever be as well moderated as a set of distinct stores that are serving specific niches.

And the opposite is true too. Why should apple decide the porn, cryptocurrency, or the Hong Kong protest app can’t run on an iPhone. It’s perfectly reasonable that they don’t want to sell those things because of their brand but they shouldn’t be blocking anyone for making and consuming those apps

I think this is a very complicated idea. At its root, all secure systems are based on trust of certain entities (be that a bank, a piece of Open Source cryptography, or just a company with values/incentives align with you)

Apple has built a secure system, but that is only secure if you trust apple (i.e. one software update could break a secure enclave). The next question is, can the system still be secure, but the trust decentralized. This is complicated and hard, but I would say it is not impossible

Apple can trust Apple, and isn’t in the business of building the not impossible. The easiest, safest path is to keep it in-house and work on continuously improving your internal security.