Epic, Spotify, and Tinder form advocacy group to push for app store changes | Hacker News Reader

Epic, Spotify, and Tinder form advocacy group to push for app store changes

appfairness.org

913 pointspoorman1,013 comments

All the arguments about what company is most evil entirely miss the point.

You don't make a decision on a specific issue based on what company you like more, you base it on who is right on the specific issue.

From an ethical perspective that's what having a codified rule of laws is all about. Everyone get's the same rules no matter how much you like them. You don't arbitrarily punish people for doing things you don't like by denying them unrelated things that they are entitled to unless you go in front of a judge and get a judge to order that as a punishment for doing the thing you don't like.

From a entirely practical and short term perspective these decisions do not just impact the companies you don't like, they also impact everyone else because our legal system puts a very heavy weight on precedent.

I'm strongly reminded of the quote "Freedom of speech doesn't protect speech you like; it protects speech you don't like." (though obviously in this case it is applied to justice in general instead of speech in particular).

The question from a principle standpoint is - can a company create an area where trust / safety / security are prioritized. T

Developers no doubt disagree with this, they have created a web that is filled with crap. Let's be 100% clear about that.

Spam calls via voip, spam into email, ddos floods of every sort imaginable, impossible to unsubscribe, cramming and slamming on subscription renewals and the list goes on. They don't want root on your device to help you, but to screw you in enough cases that you shouldn't give them root. Trust / security / safety are low low low on the list of almost all startup and other developers "growth hacking" etc.

Apple wanted to create their own little world. Phones with updates that keep on getting updated, an app marketplace with much more transparent pricing (lot less fine print), and the list goes on.

You need to look at what apple is doing in context. The world on the net developers and hackers here on HN have created is terrible in many ways for many many people. At some point folks are just tied of the endless scams.

Now the same folks who trashed a lot of the rest of the web (do you answer your phone when an unkown number calls?) want into the walled apple garden.

To keep the continuity of discussion, I assume that this comment was posted here because my top level comment was in part a reply to your (temp667's) comment here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24579860

I appreciate the attempt to connect this to the anti-trust suit, but I don't see this as a good justification for why your original critique is relevant for a few reasons:

- Many of the practices in your original critique are allowed on (or not prevented by) Apple's app store. The argument you are making here only makes sense as pertaining to anti-trust to the extent that you are critiquing practices that Apple is preventing.

- It doesn't particularly matter whether the people trying to overturn Apple's practice are the bad actors, or third parties are, since the lawsuit affects all parties (third party or not) equally. So while you could make a consumer benefit argument based on bad actors (indeed, Apple has tried to in the lawsuit), it makes little to no sense to focus on the parties suing (and simultaneously falls into the trap of just arguing that people you don't like don't deserve justice).

On a separate note - I also find the argument for Apple's bundling of services here unconvincing. I have seen no argument for why Apple's curation service needs to be bundled with the phone - which is the prerequisite of the anti trust suit. Consider that apple could perfectly well sell the hardware and OS, and separately sell (or even offer for free) a software package that locks out third party app stores and third party payment providers. Doing so would practically destroy any argument that they are using their monopoly on IPhone hardware and IOs to acquire a monopoly on app distribution and payment services. To the extent that people find the lock in useful, I expect they would install that software package.

Sure Apple can create their area of trust/safety/security in their apple store allowing those who want that to stay there. They can't however do that on a device they've sold to customers.

The question from a principle standpoint is - can companies stop a customer from modifying a device they own when it only effects the customer.

Or more realistically there is more than one question and you have to make trade offs between the right answer to all of them (and what people believe the right answer to be).

My view is: Make it hard to install out of App store, warn people about all the security/trust/safety there losing each time they enable a fine grained permissions. It's a simple security rule; don't install anything not in the app store, yes pay the 30% premium for that security. Yes it's not perfect but the current situation definitely isn't either.

>Trust / security / safety are low low low on the list of almost all startup and other developers "growth hacking" etc.

Yeah I find this general argument that developers should be "trusted" with the "freedom" of an "open" ecosystem, with all those happy buzzwords, so off-putting. I mean, sure, I might perhaps trust the small indie developer working out of his basement to not screw me over, but by and large the software that end users are interacting with are coming out of faceless billion dollar behemoths looking to squeeze every dollar out of their users (and associated data) as possible. I have zero reason to trust them, particularly given the conduct of the Internet giants (ahem... Facebook).

Perhaps if these businesses had a more user-friendly business model, end users would've been comfortable using a less restrictive mobile software platforms, similar to what we used to have on desktop computers. Facebook et all have reaped what they sowed, and they get zero sympathy from me regarding their App Store situation. They're the reason that users (even on HN) generally celebrate when Apple imposes an ever growing list of privacy restrictions on their activities.

Apple can have their garden, nobody is complaining.

The issue is one of choice and consumers ability to go beyond the walled garden.

The issue of 'scams' is a canard: there are browsers on iPhones that allow users to be involved in any number of hustles.

"Now the same folks who trashed a lot of the rest of the web (do you answer your phone when an unkown number calls?) want into the walled apple garden."

This just doesn't make any sense, moreover, it has nothing to do with 30% margins.

> Apple wanted to create their own little world. Phones with updates that keep on getting updated, an app marketplace with much more transparent pricing (lot less fine print), and the list goes on.

Other than anti-trust and similar laws, there is nothing stopping Apple from eventually creeping it onto the web. It's "their" device after all.

The wider context around the specific issues can still be useful in deciding what's "best" (distinct from "right"). EG: look at the antitrust case Apple lost over eBook pricing. The rules said they should lose in order to ensure a fair market for eBooks, a minute's consideration of the wider context said that if they lost Amazon would suck up the entire market. Which it did. The net result, even if narrowly within the rules, was a loss for consumers and for competition

No, the rules say organizing a price fixing ring is illegal. The result of which was literally to simultaneously raise prices for consumers across all platforms.

It's particularly ironic in this case because the whole point of the exercise for Apple was to increase prices so they could still charge their extortionate 30%. Amazon wasn't remotely that greedy.

"Best" for whom? Any action has the potential to be either good or bad, depending on who you ask. But if it has a positive impact on society as a whole - that's probably good enough. And striving to do the right thing, upholding important beliefs like fair access to justice and freedom of speech, these certainly fall in that category.

If a smaller company, or even one of us on HN had sued Apple would that suddenly make it okay? Apple's actions haven't changed, why should the identity of the plaintiff matter?

Regarding your specific example - if Amazon is doing something wrong, then an antitrust case should be brought against them too. But that doesn't (and shouldn't) give anyone the right to continue doing something unethical and illegal.

The ethics of speech protection and laws are a complicated subject - I strongly agree that being moral judgements into punishments is a dark road that has led to a lot of racism and other discrimination in the past... but justice isn't blind and unmoving, justice should evolve to reinforce changes in ethical thinking in society at large. There have been several prominent incidents recently that have shown that the portion of legal enforcement relying on societal norms in the US has been broken, I think due to our general acceptance that greed and money are good and having those things means you've succeeded in life.

Legal judgments that leave a bad taste in your mouth shouldn't be ignored but examined to see if the laws that we have actually fit the society we're trying to maintain - people shouldn't be arbitrarily persecuted for actions and ex post facto protections are very well intentioned and wisely put in place to protect against some really heinous abuses - but questioning whether the law should be changed to prevent future incidents isn't bad - it's how our legal system evolves.

I think the discussion and analysis of each company's prior behaviour is exactly on point--the question before humanity in the general case is "what are these companies really up to?"

Each (including Apple) has a hidden agenda. They can be both beneficial and harmful. They are not our friends! They deserve our scrutiny, suspicion and supervision.

A company is a system that was created to pursue an agenda. That agenda is nothing like the agenda of a typical human individual (except at absurd levels of abstraction) and is not necessarily net-beneficial to actual humans in the short or the long run.

It's an axiom of systems analysis that behaviour trumps speech when you are trying to figure out what a system is really up to. To say it another way, we would like to identify the actual operant utility functions of these companies, so we can predict what they are really working towards, and what their behaviour and impact might be in the future. Their prior behaviour is the best signal we have!

To force the discussion to revolve around "laws" and "right" is to pretend that current ethical positions and laws are optimal and can't be gamed. A superficial inspection will show these premises are false.

The ongoing work of governance is to try to figure out economic, social and legal rules that "work" for some consensus definition of "work". That requires a clear understanding of what is actually happening, and good scenario analysis for the range of possible outcomes (including unintended consequences). Maybe that's unrestricted free markets, maybe sometimes it isn't. Maybe it's the law as it currently stands, maybe it isn't.

The issue is 'anti competitiveness' not 'evil' and most arguments are pointed at that.

Things have improved since I posted this.

At the time I posted this the top comment and many other highly voted comments were just criticizing epic, spotify, and tinder. E.g. complaining that epic sells to kids, spotify doesn't pay artists enough, and that tinder sells sex and commits age discrimination.

Regardless of whether or not they are valid complaints, they aren't at all related to anti trust (or if they are, no one was bothering to make the connection).

This use to be the top comment, for reference: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24579860

This was the comment that was the tipping point for me making the post, and was at the time ranked fairly highly (hence all the replies to it): https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24579479

Well said.

> All the arguments about what company is most evil entirely miss the point.

This!

> I'm strongly reminded of the quote "Freedom of speech doesn't protect speech you like; it protects speech you don't like...

Modern addendum is "You can have Freedom Of Speech but no guarantee for Freedom After speech."

Edit: Just to clarify, It is not my opinion. It is Social media warriors warning people "Free speech is not free of consequences"

"Free speech is not free of consequences"

This is absolutely true though? I fail to see your point.

You are free to say what you want, and other people are free to criticize you for it. If you don't support the right to criticize, you don't support free speech.

I struggled to read your comment, but it shouldn’t be ignored. What you are saying is correct.

Can we just link directly to the advocacy group's page (https://appfairness.org/)? I'm not certain the article is adding anything.

----

I'm generally supportive of at least some of Epic's arguments towards Apple, and I do believe that Apple (and multiple other FAANG companies) are engaged in anti-competitive behavior that's currently hurting the market. But a lot of the arguments I'm reading on the App Fairness site in particular seem really poorly phrased, almost to the point of being incoherent.

From their objection on "user freedom":

> Think about this a little differently: A box of Cheerios costs about $3.00 at Kroger, but sometimes Cheerios offers a coupon which lowers the price to $2.50 at any store that offers Cheerios. What Apple is doing is basically like Kroger telling Cheerios that they’re not allowed to offer coupons, and if they do, Cheerios is at risk of being kicked out of the cereal aisle. Consumers wouldn’t stand for this type of monopolistic behavior over their cereal, so why should they allow it for the apps used on their mobile devices?

I had to think really hard what they mean by this and how it actually relates to user freedom. Most resellers are allowed to choose their own prices for goods. I don't think this analogy corresponds at all to what Apple is doing. Apple is banning apps from telling consumers in app about other purchasing options. That's a totally different objection.

I'm pleased to see developers banding together, but if this is the result then I wish they'd spend more time making more reasonable, understandable arguments. If this site was my first introduction to the debate over app store policies, I think I'd probably be on Apple's side.

What I learned from past experiences is to never use analogies. They are almost always a source of distraction, people start to argue about the analogy itself instead of the topic at hand, which is almost always completely counter productive.

Also it often only makes sense in the mind of the author...

> They are almost always a source of distraction, people start to argue about the analogy itself instead of the topic at hand, which is almost always completely counter productive.

My experience is that this is very true among a certain group of people, particularly literal-minded software enngineer types. But it is much less true in the general population where a single good analogy can accomplish more than pages of prose.

> What I learned from past experiences is to never use analogies. They are almost always a source of distraction, people start to argue about the analogy itself instead of the topic at hand, which is almost always completely counter productive.

As other's have mentioned, perhaps this is only for literal minded thinkers. In Pre-suasion by Robert Cialdini metaphors are identified as the most effective persuasion device. Essentially, take something the audience understands well and use it explain something else.

An anecdote Cialdini provides is from a person who had many years of being the top life insurance salesman in the country. He used a metaphor of "when you check out, your life insurance checks in". The metaphor brought up feelings of abandonment and support in a way that people quickly understood and bought into.

Every journalistic or popular science or economics book I’ve read recently seems to go to great lengths to come up with helpful analogies (sometimes dragging on for pages.) But there is a fundamental contradiction in that the topic of the book is supposedly interesting or remarkable because something about it is novel, otherwise the book wouldn’t need to exist. The analogy can give readers a fake feeling of following along, but whenever I study the topic in detail I find the analogy based understanding was incorrect.

Analogies can be powerful if told well. It just so happens that they're hard to tell well.

Source: Cheerios

Hofstadter would like to have a word with you.

Seriously though, there's good evidence that literally everything the human brain does is use analogies. The classic example being if I asked whether something is "in" your field of view. Without even thinking, you know how to conceptualize something that only exist in your mind as a physical container.

Analogies being bad? I think it depends where. Here on HN? Yeah, despite it's affinity for the straight and narrow threads go often the rails often enough. Sure, the discourse is civil. But it's still off on a pointless tangent.

I agree. Analogies are never perfect, and people always pick apart the bits of the analogy that aren't actually relevant.

Analogies are like regular expressions...

Agreed. Analogies are like trying to draw attention to traffic signage by decorating them with scantily-clad people.

This is a flawed analogy. The correct one would be Cheerios printing "If you buy me at Costco, I cost $1 less" on the outside of the box. No rational retailer that isn't Costco would carry that product.

Eh. A better analogy would be Cheerios sticking an insert inside their box of cereal that said, "save $1 at Costco". That kind of behavior is pretty common with physical retailers; most boxed products I buy will contain inserts that advertise replacement parts and other products from other sources.

Apple isn't just banning apps from mentioning competing stores in app descriptions, it's banning them from mentioning competing stores inside the app.

Yes, but remember that retailers can (and often do) promise to match the best price that you can find at their competitors. This is because retailers are in competition with each other for the same products.

This analogy does not apply to Apple, because it has no motivation to price match, because nobody is allowed to sell i-device apps except for Apple.

Edit: in addition, if we follow your analogy further, Costco could demand 30% from Apple on all purchases made through the App Store, for iPhones sold in Costco. Just like Apple demands a cut of all purchases after they sell a product in their store.

However the flaw in your analogy is that there is very little lock-in to particular retailers where is there is a huge lock-in to a phone you just bought.

Your own change to the analogy isn't really all that accurate either: What you are saying would be closer to, saying "This game is cheaper in Android" in the Apple store's product description. I have no idea of what the courts will rule here, but if you are limiting this discussion to whether there's precedent to advertising a store the manufacturer themselves controls, there sure are examples.

This might not be all that popular a plan with Cheerios, but perfectly normal with all kinds of items available at retail stores: For instance, Simple Modern water bottles will come with a discount coupon for buying replacement caps at a discount on the manufacturer's online store. Some printers have, inside the box a leaflet for ink discounts. At least one major vacuum cleaners brand will point you to their website for replacement bags, with an online coupon. Or, back in software, if I buy a Nintendo Switch at GameStop, I will still get ads on menus for buying games online, even though my relationship with Nintendo started at GameStop.

All kinds of retailers carry the products I mentioned, even though there really is far more profit in habituating the customer to buying the consumables in your own store than in the original item. You could argue whether this is good or bad, legal or illegal, but the examples definitely exist.

Its not on the outside of the box, its on the inside. Apple forbids in-app discussion. I wonder what Apple would say if the app had a browser component that directs users to a web-page. These draconian rules are such a clusterF* hope these guys succeed.

BTW, all analogies are flawed in some manner or another. If you take away the abstraction, every single one breaks down. And then you end up talking about the intricacies of the thing you wanted to abstract away making it moot! :)

Indeed, what is the cheerios example supposed to show? I don’t expect the discount coupon comes out of the store’s cut. Tinder or Epic are free to discount boosts or in game purchases, and spotify can give free months.

The cheerios example probably involves a fair bit of negotiation between manufacturer and retailer. Whereas apps can discount whenever they choose, without permission.

Right. I'm honestly having a hard time thinking of situations where a seller like Cheerios would be able to say, "no, everyone is going to offer our products at $2.50 for the next week." I'd be tempted to call that anticompetitive in the opposite direction, of course a seller should be allowed to set their own prices and decide for themselves whether they want to participate in a promotion.

It's not like there aren't at least somewhat better analogies they could have used. Imagine if you bought an Apple Phone from Best Buy and then that compiled version of iOS wasn't allowed to mention anywhere that you could get support from Genius Bars instead of Best Buy. Or imagine if you bought a vacuum cleaner from Walmart, and the manufacturer wasn't allowed to include any inserts inside of the box that linked to their own store for replacement parts.

But even with a better analogy, why is this argument being brought up in this specific section? I expected their user freedom section to talk more about sideloading, or right to repair, or emulation, and they just can't stop fixating on the 30% fee.

From the same section:

> Here’s an example of how this problem manifests itself: Epic produces once of the most popular video games of all time, Fortnite. If a Fortnite player were to buy an upgrade in the App Store, that individual might be charged $9.99. However, that same upgrade costs only $7.99 when purchased directly through Epic.

Cool argument, but that has nothing to do with user freedom; users are still perfectly free to buy upgrades from Epic directly.

It feels like they came up with one objection and then poorly pasted it into 3 sections.

> I don’t expect the discount coupon comes out of the store’s cut.

That's how it used to work at the grocery store I worked at. The flyers were prepared a couple weeks in advance, the sales matched up with every other store that ordered food from loblaws, it was ordered down from loblaws to the stores that carry the products they ship and sell what things would be on sale on any given week throughout all the stores.

This is why superstores, extra foods, the independent grocers and super valus all have the same stuff on sale the same weeks.

The only things the store decided to put on sale was clearance stuff getting close to the expiry date.

I'm guessing you don't have a CPG background. It's a horribly flawed analogy as retailer can and will demand special SKUs, kick brands off of aisle all the time, demand premiums for shelving units, etc.

Ok, we've changed the URL from https://www.wsj.com/articles/fortnite-maker-spotify-form-adv....

There are 2 sides of analogies. I can also argue by saying Epic is analogous to a renter who doesn’t want to pay rent. It’s mostly because they can’t find any other point but to find something similar.

There is 10e6 times more diverse supply in the rental market than for app stores, even though renting housing is a regulated market with high transaction cost.

Website's broken on my Firefox, won't scroll.

Probably the cookie popup blocked by UBO preventing scrolling. Irony: you can't read the cookie policy without accepting it first.

Works fine on 3 different versions of Firefox.

Same problem on Edge chromium.

Wow that site was disappointing.

It focused mostly on the 30% apple charges, which is both common and reasonable. It mentions the anti competitive behavior but mostly how it inflates prices, which is exactly how apple is trying to frame the debate.

Also they have cookies on an entirely static site and disable scrolling until you press accept in the cookie dick bar (something you should probably never do, certainly not on a static site.) The thing is only readable in w3m/elinks.

In my (unpopular) opinion almost all of these "apps" should really be sites anyway. App store curation doesn't provide any reall security (especially since the apps are never instrumented) so someone so incapable of measuring the safety of software that they need that level of infantilesation should really only trust software to the same degree a browser does (that is, not at all.)

Common and reasonable according to which standards? One of the arguments of Epic in court is that Apple set the standard and other stores are simply following it.

A better argument about user freedom would be:

* The social media companies that had to deal with having their apps blocked because of Apple's puritanical stance on nudity.

* The recent rule change banning vaping and tobacco related apps.

* The inability for FOSS projects to easily distribute to users without paying a $100/year fee for something they want to give away. Users can only acquire it through the app store, or compile themselves and go through an inconvenient signing process to load it on. And I believe that's very temporary.

It's pretty offensive that a company thinks they can dictate what sort of software you run on your own device.

The original analogy is pretty disingenuous and conveniently ignores a crucial detail: in the cereal example Kroger (presumably) still gets paid when the discounted box of cereal is sold. Whereas what they're asking for is the equivalent of Cheerios demanding to be placed on Kroger's shelves while cutting Kroger out of the transaction entirely. Why would Kroger ever agree to that?

When someone offers a coupon, that company pays the store the difference. I don't think they are asking to do that.

Normal people run on stories and analogies.

Epic doesn't need the tiny number of technical people to win their case. Epic needs the vast number of users to be on their side in order to win their case.

HN is not the target of that "manifesto".

There's no way to deny or even read their cookie policy without accepting it.

Your cereal aisle analogy is a bad one, for two reasons.

For one, everything about the merchandising of a particular product in a big box store is agreed upon in advance between the retailer and the manufacturer before the product is placed in the store: the product placement on the shelves; what kind of manufacturer incentives (e.g. coupons) the retailer will honor for the product and how renumerations will be made from the manufacturer to the retailer for them; what kind of sales volume is required to trigger volume discounts, etc. These agreements are highly bespoke in a way that couldn't be scaled with the sort of volume that's on app stores.

Second - physical retailers are compensated by the manufacturer when they accept a manufacturer's coupon. The transactions are logged, summarized, and traditionally the physical coupons were collected and sent to the manufacturer. Barring a pre-negotiated agreement to accept less than face value in exchange for a coupon, the retailer isn't losing revenue on the deal. However, when an app publisher offers a means to circumvent the app store payment system, Apple/Google DO in fact face a loss of revenue.

It's not my cereal analogy, it's theirs. I brought it up specifically to showcase that a lot of the arguments I'm reading on their site don't map the current situation.

Device freedom is a must. Any device should be completely controllable by the end user. There's two parts to this to me: app stores and the data collected by the devices. Users should have the freedom to install any software on their devices, period. Users should also have the freedom to stop all data collection by these devices. This applies to all electronics--video game consoles, TVs, printers, who knows what else in the future.

If we keep letting manufacturers create these "walled gardens", we're not only creating a ton of trash because they will stop supporting them eventually, we're also stopping innovation and integration across platforms. Give me government mandated open protocols, open firmware, and let me install linux on my printer if I want. As devices get smarter, we should all reap the benefits of it through our own ingenuity and hacking.

> Device freedom is a must. Any device should be completely controllable by the end user.

I have the choice of buying a completely controllable android device if I want to install mystery apps willy-nilly. I'm not interested in that, and there are millions like me. I want a locked-down device that keeps developers in check.

This situation is much like the browser nightmares of the past, where Firefox users complained that the browser was slow. People didn't really take into account that the slowness wasn't fault of Firefox, but of the zillion janky browser extensions people freely installed. Chrome came along, and people were wowed by how fast it was, not realizing it was 'fast' because they hadn't installed 47 browser extensions yet. Apple doesn't want to be Firefox, and I don't blame them.

I want my phone to be like a Nintendo, I don't really care about the freedom to install any random code I download (even though I really could if I wanted to install something I built locally with XCode). First and foremost I want developers to be terrified of getting their publishing privileges yanked if they step out of line.

So, let’s apply this same logic to accessibility. Let’s say the government says “devices must have voice over functionality”. Ok, great. Apple puts that as an option, and we’re done.

The same applies for if the government said “you have a right to install apps of your choice”. Apple adds a setting in the settings menu. You still get your locked down device by default, and much like blind people, people who care about controlling their device are given that option, too.

What you’re arguing is akin to saying, “I’m not blind, so Apple shouldn’t ever even have a Voice Over option, because it’s not my preference, even if it’s just in the settings”.

There’s a false dichotomy - Apple can still keep it locked down by default. You still get your device just as safe and sound. And much like accessibility settings, most people wouldn’t bother to find the setting, and if they did, they would have a big warning (and of course Apple could have another big warning on every install, as well as keep all their sand boxing and permissions access rules active).

There’s no loser here. If grandma digs deep into the settings and ignores multiple warnings, it seems she is proficient enough to take on the risk. Forcing blind people to not have any voice over because grandma may accidentally turn it on and have a bad outcome is a weak argument.

> This situation is much like the browser nightmares of the past, where Firefox users complained that the browser was slow. People didn't really take into account that the slowness wasn't fault of Firefox, but of the zillion janky browser extensions people freely installed. Chrome came along, and people were wowed by how fast it was, not realizing it was 'fast' because they hadn't installed 47 browser extensions yet.

Not really relevant to your point, but Chrome was legitimately faster than Firefox for a long time. It wasn't just extension bloat, V8 was a huge leap in JS speed and Chrome optimized the hell out of rendering. Firefox wasn't able to bridge that gap until their recent Quantum initiative.

> I want a locked-down device that keeps developers in check.

That's fine but how does from that statement follow that it's a good idea to let Apple do it to everyone? You don't want things, that's fine, don't get them. Nobody is asking to add anything to the things you already like, ruining them for you. People are asking for freedom of choice.

It's like saying you want to live under permanent surveillance, which you can do, you can have a security company install a camera in every room of your house, but why does that need to apply to the entire city block?

How are you worse off if Apple is required to say, allow third party app stores, which you don't need to touch? In the same vein, why was Firefox ruined for you by addons if you didn't need to install any?

> I have the choice

A lot of people don't or aren't even aware of the dangers of walled gardens. Like it or not goverments job is to regulate and protect people and the economy: be it monopolies, user data or anti-competitive practices.

Libertarians aren't ios target, it's average casual tech ignorant people who'll blindly trusts the system because they don't care.

The logical conclusion then is that the only device that should be allowed to be manufactured is a personal computer.

Companies producing specialized hardware/software couplings does not preclude another company developing open options.

I usually choose an open option for most of what I do but when it comes to some mindless gaming or my phone that I use for some sensitive matters I want them limited in their scope in a big way.

I don't understand this all-or-nothing argument that seems to be made when it doesn't reflect the reality of the situation.

> does not preclude another company developing open options.

Agreed. But they don't. I think this the point of government intervention to require or provide incentive to do something which benefits society even if it doesn't benefit the company.

Automobile safety and emissions limits comes to mind for me.

> The logical conclusion then is that the only device that should be allowed to be manufactured is a personal computer.

Nah, the capabilities can be limited, just not artificially so. I understand there is a bunch of nuance in that statement that we can get lost in discussing, but the brief salient point is "if the manufacturer can do something to my device, then they should not add restrictions for me to try to do it also". We don't need to get lost in the what-ifs that such freedom discussions often devolve into.

> The logical conclusion then is that the only device that should be allowed to be manufactured is a personal computer.

I would be comfortable with a high quality legal encoding of the Your Device principle:

"To the extent a device, or part of a device, behaves like a general purpose computer or could easily and reasonably be made to behave that way if not for artificial restrictions placed upon it by a vendor, the effective owner(s) of the device or part shall have the right to use and control the general purpose computer aspects as they deem appropriate."

"Effective owner means those using the device as if they own it, so where a device is technically rented or licensed from a vendor, the renter or licensee is deemed the effective owner for application of this principle".

Details of what that means in practice for non-obvious edge cases would be fleshed out by precedent and the courts I guess.

It would not limit what devices can be manufactured, but it would place a requirement of access and control on some kinds of devices.

Genuinely curious, how would you give users "the freedom to stop all data collection by these devices" without some kind of walled garden. Is the solution something like flatpack for all apps? but then how do you make sure all apps don't just refuse to work without permission to collect data or manage to collect information without users knowing? You can't force developers to be honest about what their app does without having a means to prevent it from being installed. Specifically for apps, I can't think of a solution that has no restrictions of software installations, but wouldn't be trivially turned into an incredibly user hostile environment.

You can monitor what calls an app makes. LittleSnitch on Mac is an example example of this.

There are going to be nefarious actors who still manage to bypass it, and there are going to be risks outside of a walled garden - and that's a meaningful choice we can provide users.

"Hey, you can stay inside the app store and get these promises, or you can install what you want and risk X, Y and Z."

Android does this.. decently well. There are issues with the google framework, but otherwise it's functional - my elderly family doesn't need me to reset their phones every month, yet I can sideload all my games and FOSS apps.

> I can't think of a solution

because you're only thinking of technical solutions. A comprehensive privacy framework that requires explicit user consent to data collection and gives user transparent controls accomplishes just that, without having to resort to user-hostile or complicated tech.

As a developer, a huge reason I don’t mind walled gardens is the massive reduction in piracy. I’m glad people want to download & pirate the apps I poured blood, sweat, and tears into... but I’m not down with theft. Each dollar I earn represents the time I’ve spent away from friends & family.

I’ve worked on games that have been copied outright. All assets and artwork, but a new name and “publisher” being sold elsewhere. It eats into profits.

When the walls come down, developers will be knocked off. This will hurt indys far more than larger companies, as “developers” opportunistically exploit the work of others.

Apple & Google are great at reducing and shutting down this kind of activity. If people can install the Pirate Bay store and install anything for free, many folks will.

If users can be coaxed into privileging an app, malware will control the majority of phones. People are still falling for the Nigerian prince scam.

All games on computer are piratable. On mobile they are not as easy to pirate as you noticed. Do you think the gaming environment is better on mobile? Are dev better paid on mobile? From what I have seen I could answer no to both, and would even say the walled garden is really really not helping indie devs break through on mobile.

I see actually many ways in which devs are impacted : - discovery is basically null, both on Android and Apple. You need to just pay ads if you want people finding your game. Steam is much MUCH better at it. - you can't really have a good mod environment or a hackable game, which is very important for a lot of indie games - you cannot do some kinds of game. Right now that include gore and sexual games (see kawaii killer for instance) but also some other things like a weed growing simulator. Who knows what it will be tomorrow - as Google is going into gaming, and who knows maybe Apple at some point, you are basically on the hands of a competitor many times your size with no alternative

If users didn’t want these things, users wouldn’t buy them.

For the vast majority of people, and iPhone is way, way better than a computer that can run any app, precisely because it can’t run any app they click on.

I’m a hacker, so I would love to be able to install any software I want on my iPhone, and introspect it in other ways.

Most users, however, would have a way worse experience using their phone if they were given this option, because a non-trivial percentage of them would follow the tutorials online provided to them by malware authors to install their malware.

This is precisely what happened to desktop computers. Has everyone forgotten about Bonsai Buddy?

People who want a general purpose, configurable device that can run any code they want on it have options. They’re big, clunky, out of date phones.

Apple is being punished for their success here. They happen to make the best phone hardware at the moment, and they bundle the best phone hardware with cryptographically-enforced editorial decisions about the best software that runs on it.

I think the real danger here is that of censorship: if the state commands Apple to delete (or actively remote-disable) certain apps, a huge problem exists. Today it’s WeChat or TikTok. What if tomorrow it’s Signal? iMessage’s encryption has already been backdoored for the feds in the default configuration via iCloud Backup (which is not end to end encrypted and backs up the entirety of chat history from the device to Apple each night). The state could literally command Apple to prohibit any type of secure communication from the device via this method and they’d have to comply, and iPhone-owners would have no recourse due to the DRM. That’s the real danger.

There’s a real argument to not allowing Apple to do this, but I don’t think “consumer choice” is it. Consumer choice chose the walled garden over the anarchy of Desktop Computer Malware.

I have this discussion nearly daily when talking with Android users. The iPhone is not a modular unit that can be tampered with at all, but despite even being a software developer, I do not actually care about my phone being modular. I want it to work and I want it to work well across the entire platform. Not only does iOS severely limit your options for changing your phone's UX, something a lot of people lament about quite often, but they also have rigorous design-guides that push every developer in the eco-system to have it look the same way. Something as simple as the date/timepickers that Apple removed in iOS 14 can't be changed by the user, but Apple does their hardest to make sure everyone makes it look the way they've set it up, and for my purposes I legitimately prefer that over deciding it myself but having the apps on the platform ultimately use either or willy-nilly.

There definitely are issues with Apple, but the user not having full access to changing their device isn't really one, and that's coming from someone who most definitely has the know how to do pretty much anything and still remain safe, I'd dread to see users be stuck having full root access to their phones without even knowing what the fuck that means.

There absolutely needs to be options for those that want to be able to hack away at their phone to their hearts content, but it doesn't need to be every phone, and Apple aren't criminals just because they don't offer that possibility and users happen to want their phones anyway.

Please don't give me root access to my iPhone, I do not care about it, I have no need for it, and I do not want it.

Your style of thinking cannot be popular on HN, but we all know why this is good for the consumer - in this day and age, businesses will completely rip apart the consumer in every which way. They'll not miss a chance to fuck the consumer's privacy, financial state, psychology, innocence and addiction.

HN crowd wants something they can run sudo on. But people here have not got a slighest idea of how to run a device for close to a billion+ people.

Wrong. Completely.

The vast majority of people you're talking about don't realise they're having their prices jacked up with taxes or their options curtailed by Apple. They just assume the App Store is where you get the apps because it's been programmed into them over the last 12 years.

Allowing third party app stores doesn't change the API or permissions system already baked into the OS. If Epic wants to start an App Store with lax policies then if you and Apple are right about the value of their policies then that'll become apparent quickly enough and will still be a selling point of the App Store.

This is nothing like what happened with desktop computers, where the security model had to be welded on after the horse had already bolted. Windows (just as an example) wouldn't allow blanket admin permissions to software if there was a way to stuff the legacy software genie back in it's bottle. Unfortunately fixing permissions retrospectively would break a multitude of legacy software that hasn't been updated in years, in some cases decades.

Apple is not being punished for success, and you don't understand the problem or the legal case, which is entirely not at all related to Apple protecting or not protecting their users from pop-up ads.

Consumer choice didn't chose anything. Most phone users don't even understand that they are in a walled garden.

tldr; This isn't The Beach, it's The Truman Show.

>Most users, however, would have a way worse experience using their phone if they were given this option, because a non-trivial percentage of them would follow the tutorials online provided to them by malware authors to install their malware.

I think Apple fans exagerrate when they say that most users are so "inexperienced" to get taken advantage off.

- this number of completly inexperienced user is not proven to be as large, if you look at Android or OSX you don't see 51% of users having malware on their machine

- with the amount of money Apple has they could afford to improve the security by adding more sand boxing and making unlocking of the phone by "tricked incompetent users almost impossible"

- I assume apps and websites can use your microphone and camera on your phone, it is under soem popup/permission prompt, why do you trust the "inexperienced users" with the camera permissions some bad person could trick them.

- "protecting" an unknown small number of users by limiting the rest makes no sense, what makes more sense is MONEY, Apple makes more money by locking things down and getting 30% from apps, subscrip[tions and the much hated lootboxes

> If users didn’t want these things, users wouldn’t buy them.

doesn't follow. people buying a thing despite flaw X just means don't consider X a dealbreaker, not that they actually want X

Everyone should keep in mind your points when thinking about improving the situation. The current setup does have advantages for both consumers and developers.

Did the majority of the app revenue end up flowing through the Apple by chance or did the rules that setup facilitate that system? As you said, consumers who spend money have largely chosen the Apple walled garden.

Apple's advertising is built on security and privacy — allowing other App Stores on their system would only open up users to invasive tracking & attacks. I want my desktop system to be open as can be; I'm perfectly happy with my phone being (somewhat) locked down. That said, Apple could allow users to choose to install other App Stores on their devices, but at the cost of their devices being considered hopelessly compromised and no longer eligible for support from Apple. Let the market decide: a wider variety of games/apps, or a (fairly) secure system with attached privacy promises.

Its a lot simpler than users wanting a device that 'cant run any app they click on'.

The vast vast majority of users don't consider anything except the marketing. And apple is good at marketing. So people want iOS devices.

Yes, this is partly about Apple being "punished" for its success. That is a good thing. Entities that are too successful become too powerful and should be "punished" for it.

This!

Which is why I absolutely reject Epic et al’s position.

They want to be part of a small exclusive group of store owners who get to share in the benefits of Apple’s investments.

Very different from the device freedom you are calling for.

It must also be said that device freedom cannot come at the cost of security and trust.

I and presumably you, have the capability to make good decisions about what software to trust.

Most people must delegate this to a trusted third party.

I would support a legal requirement for iOS devices to have a bootcamp equivalent.

That way Epic and whoever else wants to build their own platform would be free to do so.

> They want to be part of a small exclusive group of store owners who get to share in the benefits of Apple’s investments.

Exclusive? Why can't I write an app store?

> Which is why I absolutely reject Epic et al’s position.

> They want to be part of a small exclusive group of store owners who get to share in the benefits of Apple’s investments.

Can you clarify what you mean by this?

"They want to be part of a small exclusive group of store owners who get to share in the benefits of Apple’s investments"

False.

Epic made very clear, early on, IN THEIR COURT FILING that their case was an attempt to legally force Apple and Google to allow for third party app stores to exist equitably on iOS and Android.

Does that benefit Epic substantially? Of course it does. They want a mobile Epic Games Store on both platforms. But it would also break the stranglehold duopoly that Google and Apple have over the mobile software marketplace.

Example to prove the point: Nothing in Epic's proposals or court filing would prevent Steam Mobile or the Microsoft App Store from launching on iOS and Android on the same terms that Epic prevailed on in court. That's about as far away from anti-competitive behaviour as this court case could possibly hope to be.

The common misconception of HN crowd: assumption that everyone are like them and actually want complete control. There is a nontrivial cost to having that control and not many actually want it. They want something that works and is useable.

I don't mind if people want to pay for someone to curate their apps, but I don't see any reason developers shouldn't be able to charge those people +43% for buying through the curated app store. If there's really as much value as everyone claims then users won't have a problem paying extra, right?

I also think it's crazy that IAPs are viewed as anything more than a simple payment that would incur normal payment processing fees. You'd never find anyone willing to argue that VISA or Mastercard should be able to charge 30% for payment processing because of the infrastructure they provide for merchants.

You're not going to get open firmware. Cell phones are radio transceivers in the hands of millions of unlicensed users. The only reason any of the cellular infrastructure works is all the devices run tested and certified firmware.

For most cellular basebands the PHY is more powerful and capable than the regulations would normally allow. They only get certified for consumer use because the firmware bounds the operation to the regulated envelopes.

No devices would ever be allowed to be sold on the consumer market if end users could go tweak the firmware or run uncertified firmwares. They shouldn't be allowed to be sold. The difference between a transmitter and jammer is a pretty fine line.

True, but anyone mildly determined can get a two year old device, 0day the baseband, and have full access. I remember old iOS exploits that gave access to the full baseband as well.

You can buy various SDR devices without any license, it's not hard to make jammer if you want to.

Is a car considered a "device"? Would you ride with or let your kids, family or friends get in a taxi that has been "modified" by the driver?

I'm surprised at all of the negativity here. The changes proposed would be great for developers, even if (most) of the companies involved are shady, their reasons are selfish, and the obvious "astroturfiness" of the website is laughably dissonant and reeks like a dirty think tank that hasn't been cleaned in months. Apple has no qualms about absolutely screwing developers historically. I'm happy to see some pushback.

Support for Epic never took root on HN because techno-entrepreneurs see themselves not as mere fart app developers but as temporarily embarrassed billionaire monopolists.

>but as temporarily embarrassed billionaire monopolists.

I don't think anyone seriously thinks that. The counterarguments I've seen boil down to:

* apple's control on the app store is a net benefit for consumers

* we shouldn't be regulating it; consumers should be able to choose themselves

* fuck epic (because of their prior misdeeds)

Idk about that. The iOS developers I've seen have largely been supportive of Epic's actions, even Epic's motivations might be unsavoury. It's the users that have pushed back, out of fear that a more "open" iOS could turn their iPhone into a Windows XP-esque privacy, security and UX nightmare.

I support opening up Apple's ecosystem, but I don't support Epic. They say they want to give user's the freedom to choose, yet they took a video game I purchased away from my chosen storefront (rocket league being taken off of steam)

Where's my user choice Epic?

Support for Epic never took root anywhere.

Because everyone can see Epic for what they are: a billion dollar company who wants their own monopoly.

Do you think Fortnite will be available on competing stores ?

I have also been really surprised with the whole debate on this saga here. For developers, this looks like such a no brainer because they should personally relate to what these companies are asking for.

It's also a no-brainer from the business and marketing side. Unless Apple somehow forces certain rules on third-party app stores to require their apps to comply with advertising, tracking, and security measures, there's no reason for these third party app stores to care if the apps they have on their store track the user for advertising via something other than the tracking identifier - they'd all bypass the tracking consent popup via fingerprinting and other techniques.

None of this would be great for developers.

Having to deal with a multitude of stores run by companies that are even shadier than Apple is not good.

Because "great for developers" just shouldn't matter. It should be about what the consumers want.

A worse time for developers means worse apps, worse apps means less-happy consumers. They aren't mutually exclusive.

The developers are the ones being abused by Apple, so yeah, it should matter.

Companies shouldn't be allowed to abuse their market dominance, regardless of whether the abused are other companies or consumers.

That's an easy opinion to have when it's not your livelihood.

Does consumer centric focus necessitate draconian developer policies?

Not exactly sure if it's astroturfing, but there's definitely been a lot of non-devs commenting on this issue.

You can see this when they go off on some security tangent while the App Store is in fact host to thousands of malware in disguise. They trust that Apple is manually reviewing each and every App for security holes, that's why the App Store exists in the first place and totally why there's a 30% toll. I'm starting to imagine it's not really about security but about the illusion of security for a lot of people.

Please don't post insinuations about astroturfing. That's in the site guidelines: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Unless people have specific evidence, the overwhelming majority of the time, these perceptions turn out to be illusory. Other commenters having different views than one's own does not constitute specific evidence (or rather, it's evidence merely that a topic is divisive). Plenty of past explanation here: https://hn.algolia.com/?sort=byDate&dateRange=all&type=comme...

Security and privacy are just like those 200 metres waterproof watches they were selling in the '80s. Most people who bought them hardly went deeper than their bathtub.

You buy the concept, and caring about the expensive details is a nice signal of affluence and self-esteem (I deserve this much security & privacy).

"illusion"? It's relative security.

On the iphone, if I buy a used phone and a scammer has popped a cheapo battery in to show no battery life slow down - apple alerts me (also unpopular on HN BTW).

If I buy an android phone from most carriers, their "security" involved pre-loading it with unremovable adware and tracking apps. This is more secure - are you serious?

The google play store has less malware? The permissions process for android apps has been terrible.

With apple, I can now give apps access to specific photos in my camera roll, it works great. It alerts me to folks doing background tracking and makes it easy to turn off (even after I said yes earlier).

What's nuts is that developers don't understand why consumers benefit or like this and want the DOJ to blow open this little bubble of sanity so they can push their crapware through or their auto-billing app stores through.

Why should I read this website and take it seriously if I can't even read the cookie policy without accepting cookies, and when I actually do attempt to read the policy (thanks Reader Mode) I am told that to opt-out I have to disable cookies in my browser?

Looking further and reading their privacy policy in the section titled "Your European Rights", I see this:

> You have the right to ask us not to process your Personal Data for marketing purposes. We will usually inform you (before collecting your Personal Data) if we intend to use your Personal Data for such purposes or if we intend to disclose your information to any third party for such purposes. You can exercise your right to prevent such processing by checking certain boxes on the forms we use to collect your Personal Data.

This is backwards. It is my right to not have you process my personal data for marketing purposes unless I opt-in, not my right to opt-out. This is an important distinction, and the fact that they have a poorly worded privacy policy on this makes me feel like they didn't really do their due diligence on this very basic stuff.

It's probably because they care very little about consumer rights and are just doing what companies do: attempt to make the most money possible.

Do their motivations invalidate the argument?

From https://appfairness.org/our-vision/

> No app store owner should prohibit third parties from offering competing app stores on the app store owner’s platform, or discourage developers or consumers from using them.

I don't disagree but does this mean Sony should allow, for example, Steam to be installed on the PS5? Or is the definition of "App Store" used here narrow and arbitrary?

Yes, it means Sony has to add Steam to PS5 or else it is narrow and arbitrary.

To me the iPhone is a console, end of story. If you like the console experience, it’s a great device. If you don’t, there are a million android and even alternative OS based phones out there which are more like a PC. If you want your phone to be a PC, you should do what most people around the world do and buy one of those.

Instead we have these companies who are trying to force Apple to sell PCs instead of consoles. It’s in their business interests, so I get it. But I hope it doesn’t work, because there are a lot of us (myself included) who really LIKE the console experience, both on iPhone and on PS4, and don’t want a PC experience on those devices.

>To me the iPhone is a console, end of story.

I'm so tired of hearing this ridiculous analogy.

From a purely technical stand point it may be true, but for a large chunk of the population, the smartphone is their one and only connection to the digital world. It controls their connection to their bank accounts, governments, news/discourse, family, friends, dating life, education (formal and informal), medical information, insurance policies, wayfinding, weather forecasts and emergency services.

For those with disabilities, it affords them a quality of life they might not otherwise have. For others still, it contains their most personal thoughts, ideas, dreams and memories.

One can certainly argue that because of all that, the app ecosystem should be tightly controlled. That's fair. But the smartphone has grown beyond a simple "nice-to-have" utility. It's a base-level necessity for modern life.

Since this trend is only accelerating, we need to recognize that and frame our discussions accordingly.

> To me the iPhone is a console, end of story.

This would be true if iPhone would be only a toy. But it's also the only source of person-to-person communication, source of news and primary computing device for large part of USA population.

And that makes it very different from a PS5. By market share. By use. By impact. And IMPACT is what we're measuring here.

> To me the iPhone is a console, end of story.

Not to consumers, it's replacing the computer market (especially in the developed world) and even Apple themselves market their products as computer replacements.

This is so ridiculous. Do you sign into your bank or trade stocks on your XBox? Where would you access important documents outside of your desktop/laptop?

Well, then the good thing for you is that you have to simply not install those other stores, and keep buying from Apple's official app store. Why prevent other users/devs from using them?

"console" doesn't mean much. Phone is special because for how humans actually live, having one phone is strong preferred over 5. But habit consoles isn't as much of a big deal. And despite what the binary thinkers claim, how humans actually live matters in law, at least as long as companies insist upon the peculiar formation of intellectual property rights.

How does letting me have a PC experience hurt your console experience? What gives you the right to force Epic into a console experience for everyone?

No it does not. Sony isn't like Apple. I can freely buy things in / for PlayStation games with my credit card. Not so in iOS apps. There all payment goes through Apple, taking an additional 30% cut above the 30% cut of the app price. Neither Sony, Microsoft or Nintendo does this.

> To me the iPhone is a console, end of story. If you like the console experience, it’s a great device. If you don’t, there are a million android and even alternative OS based phones out there which are more like a PC. If you want your phone to be a PC, you should do what most people around the world do and buy one of those.

This! A hundred times over, and over again.

An iPhone is an iPhone, competing with a million other phones (well, maybe thousands).

An iPad however, is another story, as Apple themselves like to push it as a general purpose "computer". Maybe that's why they forked out iPadOS, so that if they're ever forced to make changes based on device classification they could limit those changes to the iPad?

From https://appfairness.org/issues/30-app-tax/

> For most purchases made within its App Store, Apple takes 30% of the purchase price. No other transaction fee — in any industry — comes close.

This is a straight-up lie and Epic, being in the gaming industry, knows it. Steam takes the same 30% (unless you're huge) and is Epic's direct competitor on PC. Not to mention every other gaming platform[1].

[1] https://www.ign.com/articles/2019/10/07/report-steams-30-cut...

> This is a straight-up lie and Epic, being in the gaming industry, knows it. Steam takes the same 30% (unless you're huge) and is Epic's direct competitor on PC. Not to mention every other gaming platform[1].

And Epic managed to fight this by offering a store that takes a lesser maragin. Something Epic or anyone else is ever allowed to do on Apple due to how they deliberately built the product.

If anything, the Steam situation is the perfect example of how broken the mobile world is when it comes to enabling competition.

I think the the underlying game here is that epic wants to run its own app stores. It's not allowed to do that because every platform has followed Apple's model and mandated that theirs is the one and only app store on each platform.

Otherwise we end up with many app stores, which requires users to care about where they get candy crush... You can pay more or less at each store, and have different probabilities of picking up some terrible malware based on your decisions. On the flip side, we might see lots of apps using weird disallowed OS functionality in off-brand stores, leading to a second round of innovation in apps.

Realistically, it ends with many stores of varying quality and mark up. People brainwashed enough to pay the apple tax will probably continue paying the apple tax, for the most part. But the overall game changes substantially.

It might be that steam doesn't consider it a transaction fee? (Which is weasley wording imo)

Can a developer offer in-app purchases in a Steam downloaded game w/ direct payments using stripe or another payment processor?

It isn't a lie. Steam takes a cut too yes, but Apple takes a cut after that 30% you mention. You don't pay 30% to Steam from in-app purchases. No one except Apple force you to use its payment system and take an additional 30% cut after the first 30% cut of the app price. Unless you are a small indie developer you end up paying way more to Apple than any other platform.

Also why limit to app stores. I want to sell my own cosmetics on their fortnite item store (jk, I don’t). Valve allows that for games like CSGO, if I understand that correctly. The whole „they build a platform, I want a part“ is weird.

Because app stores are acting as platforms as well as used to restrict third parties and improve first party products. Does Fortnite even have a platform for developing cosmetics and selling them? If not, then this argument misses the mark.

Consoles do provide salient examples though.

Bethesda and valve tried this with skyrim paid mods, it didn't go over well and valve canceled it. They tried again with creation club, but it's not too popular. https://fallout.fandom.com/wiki/Creation_Club#History

I think that if you own a store, you should be able to make the decision regarding which products you want to stock on your shelves.

If that store isn't a monopoly and the decisions aren't for purposes of restraining trade.

Maybe it should be something like, "if your platform doesn't allow side loading of other apps, or other app stores, then the store on that platform can take no more than X% commission on sales"

Does Steam allow side loading into it's launcher/library?

As a user, I don't want more app stores all over my phone. I don't want more app stores all over my game console or PC either. Compare it to the Windows gaming world, where if you want game 1, you need to go to store A, if you want game 2, you need to install store B, if you want game 3, you need to install store C. Yuck! What end user wants that hassle?

But it's better overall for a user because it allows competition for the marketplace. Do you only shop at Walmart because it's convenient?

I would definitely want more app stores on my game console. Sometimes the deals are just not there, for PC it has a lot of options, and it has been good for consumers, Epic store has been giving away free games like it was going out of business

> Or is the definition of "App Store" used here narrow and arbitrary?

The whole thing is narrow and arbitary in service of the dishonesty of the companies involved. If they care about choice, why is Epic forcing me to install their store to access games on a PC or phone? If they care about consumer choice, why can fans of Joe Rogan no longer access his material without becoming Spotify customers? Why do Epic and Spotify not have the courage to compete on a level playing field?

None of this is aimed at consumer choice. None of the companies have a commitment to that, or I could have downloaded Borderlands 3 for the PC on the same day via Steam, the Epic Game store, or the Windows store. Instead, Epic chose to make it an exclusive to prevent consumer choice.

> I don't disagree but does this mean Sony should allow, for example, Steam to be installed on the PS5?

That would be great for the hundreds of millions (billions?) of consumers and thousands of developers in the global game industry, but bad for exactly 3 companies: Sony, Nintendo, and Microsoft.

And if consoles are forced to allow alternative stores, we won't be able to buy these consoles at the current prices as they won't be subsidised anymore. Loss for consumers

Its a vision document that outlines their vision. Nobody gets 100% of what they want anyway.

Well they never want to take this to its logical conclusion which is every manufacturer would have to provide the means for anyone, including direct competitors, a means to sell software through their device.

So do we also force any app store owner to also provide access to their payment services as well? If Apple is forced to open the iPhone do they also have to grant access to the phones secure means of payments? This sounds like a paradise for world intelligence agencies.

So what prevents Apple from permitting third party stores but still restricting that only signed and reviewed applications can run?

The most underrated thing we might get with multiple app stores:

Devs do not need anymore XCode or a Mac to develop for iOS since Apple couldn't enforce any specific runtime or proprietary tool-chains anymore. I have an extra Macbook lying around here just for that reason.

Who knows if Google will then offer Android Studio for iOS or Facebook a real React Native. Good times ahead and I cross my fingers. You don't have to like Epic, Spotify or Tinder but if they're successful developers in particular will benefit due to a richer iOS dev ecosystem.

That would be the day I might own my first Apple device or even release my apps on it.

That's such an arbitrary delineation. What consoles or in-app markets? Should epic also be forced to allow arbitrary third party on fornite store for example and Nintendo the switch? And why limit it to digital markets?

I feel like this is like trying to legislate walmart into leasing floor space to set up their own shops just because they don't want to pay their own stocking fees. It just makes no sense as anything other than a blatant attempt at regulatory capture which I'd argue is far more anti-competitive and extractive in spirit than what Apple/Google are doing.

The pro competitive move for these companies should do is team up with each other and create their own ecosystem like what Google did with Chrome and Android when they were freaked out at the prospects of an Apple and Microsoft controlled mobile space.

If they truly think they can provide so much more value to both devs and users but for the 30% app store fee then please actually do so and we'll all be better off. It's not like they're short on capital collectively.

Apple built their controlled ecosystem and set their rules. And now others are insisting that Apple should not have that control (even when they themselves are doing the same thing).

And furthermore, the Apple ecosystem is so popular because Apple curates the app store. I recommend their stuff to my non-techie relatives because I trust that they're not going to stumble their way into installing malware from some weird knockoff from Elbonia.

With an iPhone, for better or for worse, I can point them at the App Store... app... ("say 'app' again! I dare you!") and be reasonably confident they're getting the official Instagram app. There are multiple apps with "Instagram" in the name, but the official one is the top search result.

Contrast with the Chrome Web Store. The search results for "Instagram"[0] have a bunch of results from who-knows-where, and many of them contain the official logo somewhere inside their preview image. They all look they could be the real thing, but as far as I can tell, none of them are.

Going to the family's house for holidays use to mean spending some time cleaning the weird programs off of the in-laws' computer. Now it means uninstalling the odd Chrome extensions they've manage to find, and making them change their website passwords.

If it ever becomes super easy for Apple users to install random software they find on the Internet, I am throwing my older family members' iPhones into a lake and giving them a flip phone.

[0] https://chrome.google.com/webstore/search/instagram?hl=en-US...

But it is impossible to bypass the store for any normal person.

Think about it, you are a normal person who wants to continue to use an application and for some reason the dev has been kicked out of the store (this often happens and the devs often have no idea why or how). You would be frustrated no?

Not to mention the mental stress of the poor devs which are subject to inhuman automated responses, neglect, and abuse by Apple/Google. Apple/Google is essentially shutting down small businesses arbitrarily and remorselessly. The only way action happens is if the dev somehow gets enough attention on sites like this that Apple is forced to act.

These tech monopolies have MORE than enough money for a customer/creator/dev service department - they just don't care, or, perhaps, maliciously use the lack of one to control their platform: "Oops sorry, you have been talking to our super-smart infallible AI, we don't know why its acting this way, but we are sure its right! You have one week to fix the issues - have a nice day!"

iOS has around 70% share of mobile app revenue and most of the premium customers. If you're building a business, media or communication tool you can't compete without an iOS app.

"Standard Oil built their ecosystem and set their rules."

"AT&T built their ecosystem and set their rules."

It's about power. The importance of mobile platforms has grown over the past decade. Apple is in a much different position now than they were when the app store started. It makes some sense that opinions on that have changed.

>And now others are insisting that Apple should not have that control (even when they themselves are doing the same thing).

Exactly Apple organized developers, giving the developers a collective power to rival Apple's unilateral dictatorship...sure Apple could call their bluff like they always do with any one single developer, except if these developers collectively withdraw from the Apple ecosystem in mass, Apple would lose developers/market share/market cap.

Now if only consumers would collectively organize against big tech in the same fashion, big tech wouldn't seem so big, and consumer could begin to dictate how these platforms collect use their data.

Sounds like a great time to make sure we ban all the closed ecosystems and reestablish free market at its best.

It's a monopoly, and it's illegal.

Epic; in particular, is just handling this situation laughably at best. I can't imagine taking someone to court over my own intentionally sneaky violation of a company's set of rules.

The conversation about Apple's 30% is a valid one. Epic is, intentionally, at this point; taking a sledgehammer to any validity that conversation had.

The way Epic handled this situation was with a maturity level of a 6-year-old kid yelling 'no!' to their parents and throwing a tantrum.

We need serious, mature discussion over these issues.

Spotify, in particular; while a horrible, heartless company to artists like myself, could at least make the excuse that they could funnel more of that 30% to the artists, although I doubt any more than 1% of it would actually go to us. (Spotify CEO is worth $3.8bn and the company claims they can't pay artists more...)

I'm not sure wtf leg Tinder has to stand on beyond greed?

The page is blocked by this message...

> We use cookies to give you the best possible experience on our website. By continuing to browse this site, you give consent for cookies to be used. For more details, please read our Cookie Policy.

...with the only option being “I accept” (and by the way, you’re not allowed to read the cookie policy without first accepting it. Christ).

Honestly, this thoroughly undermines the message about “consumer freedom”.

Correct me if I am wrong but the advocacy group is essentially arguing that let me use your platform (marketplace) services and get a free ride doing so. Kind of like taking an Uber where at the end of the ride the driver just says: "you know what, lets ditch Uber, pull out your credit card and settle between the two of us. And I will charge you much lower!!" Aha.

The analogy only works if the only way to get to your destination was to use Uber. iOS doesn't allow app installs outside of the store.

I don't think "free ride" has ever described developer relationships with the App Store. The main pushback seems to be against Apple leveraging their App Store to benefit their payment processing and other services that have nothing to do with distributing software. I think it's more like Uber making drivers buy their tires through an "Uber Store" as a condition of being on the platform. It's shady and ultimately hurts the end user.

Ah, okay. Now I begin to see their goals.

I've been trying to wrap my head around why Epic would shoulder-tackle Apple in the space of app stores, when they have their own app store. Naively, I've been thinking that any ruling adverse to Apple here also impacts Epic's business model---if the government caps app store revenue cuts at, say, 10%, that's a slice off the top of what Epic can charge developers going through its store, too.

But Epic is a game publisher first, app store owner second. A fair and regulated market is a win for them, because it decreases the barriers to competition in the app store space while, on average, probably diminishing store owner cuts, which benefits developers, of which Epic is one. So a more regulated market is a net positive for them.

It's highly unlikely that a regulator would cap Apple's cut at e.g. 10% like that. Apple is using a monopoly on distribution to enforce a monopoly on payments (and can thus monopolistically set prices arbitrarily) so it is most likely a regulator would force them to allow competition on distribution and payments, and thus allow the market to change the 30% organically, rather than just enforce a different arbitrary cut.

I think it’s worth noting how hostile Epic’s app store is to its customers.

They force you to use it to launch games you’ve already purchased from them, which just means you have to waste processor cycles to wade through a grip of their blaring ads (and can only imagine the data they’re collecting/monetizing from this)

Pure enter through the gift shop.

The dark patterns are egregious as well; a tech-savvy friend bought a game from them so we could multiplayer. I got a call from him 20 minutes later because he was unable to find the game he just purchased, even the transaction went through and it was downloaded.

Turns out they had a “feature” hidden in the preferences that was enabled by default to hide the library of your purchased games from the navigation menu.

Valve used to be a game publisher first and an app store owner second, too. I'm sure Epic's app store was in part inspired by looking at the immense pile of money Valve is now sitting on due to getting a 30% cut of most PC game money for most of the past two decades.

This is a good analysis but it always seemed so simple to me. If they win this ruling they overnight can make like a billion dollars more a year. Putting resources into this case makes more business sense then any other venture they could try.

Epic scored a lucky (?) hit with fortnite that brought them a lot of cash but I believe their bread and butter is their game engine where do they charge a percentage of the profits. Their store is more of a long-term investment, it might not bring a lot of revenue at the moment but if things go well for them it can easily convert to the top dog.

If I build an operating system + hardware, should I be legally mandated to provide tooling to make it easy for users to find and install arbitrary software?

There are all sorts of regulations in other fields, some of them serve public interest (as all of them should). Forcing a very powerful company into making their platform more open might be OK.

There's quite a lot of grey area between "legally mandated to make it easy" and "legally mandated to not make it impossibly difficult."

Roughly, what you shouldn't be able to do is distribute a product with that requires a contract in order to build upon it or extend it. You'd have to tease out the nuance of this more in legalese for sure, but that's the gist of it. The application to OS+software is a special case, the same principle applies in e.g. why Keurig's K-Cups DRM scheme should not be legal.

In ideal world, yes. OS vendor should not dictate what runs on the OS and under which conditions. Same for HW vendors.

This is a prerequirement for free market to work - the option for new competition to crop up in different fields and give you more options, more innovation and the ability to beat the platform owner at their own stagnation.

This does not exclude the platform owner from launching their own stack and competing on its merits. It's the forceful blocking that's anticompetitive and prevents innovation and improvement.

I don't think you should be legally mandated to make it easy, but if you sell a product to someone you shouldn't be allowed to stop them using it in the way they want to. If you do choose to retain control over how they can use the device then you should accept there might need to be regulation over what limits you can put in place in order to stop you doing things that are anti-competitive.

"arbitrary software"...

Take the world "arbitrary" and we can see the truth.

Now let me rephrase this in the right way, to avoid the language tricks used on your question.

Should the user have the right to install software on the device they bough and therefore, they own?

Its not "legally mandating" the provider to be "forced" to do anything. Its just a matter of rights of the user who buy stuff from anyone.

Its a pure ethical thing to do, that protects the user freedom, and thats what the law should do, to protect the rights of the party with the least power in a negotiation between two parties. Especially if the concept of property and ownership is involved.

I dont get the half of the comments in this thread. If we depended on your point of views, we would be stuck with the Intels, Microsoft's, Apples and the likes with absolute control into our digital lifes.

Remember Prism and the collusion of goverment spy agencies and tech companies to know everything everyone was doing?

Now imagine how much power this represents? Imagine a modern fascist with that much power on his hands? What would he would be able to do?

You dont even need to get into conspiracy theories, but just think about the rights and freedoms of the users against the effort of tech companies to control them.

But to avoid the centralization of power and control would be a side-effect of people standing for those simple right's.

If you build an OS + hardware, how are you assuming apriori that you have users and also developers who write software that targets your platform? But anyway, the answer is no you should not be legally mandated in your case of boutique products.

The rules are different when free-markets fail, and one product or service dominates the entire market segment or exerts a large influence on the market (as determined by a legal authority).

The entire purpose of government is to serve our needs, if its no longer doing that we should amend laws/rules/policies as necessary. Everyone should be free to make an argument for their case.

if you want your IP protections, yes. Companies don't exist in vacuum, they are subject to laws of the land, some of them advocated by people called programmers. If it's fine for companies to demand IP protection, it's fine for developers to demand fair access to that market.

It should be mandatory to allow installing arbitrary apps, which has recently become nigh impossible, at least I couldn't find any way to distribute my rejected app.

As a consumer, I really like how the AppStore works and I buy iPhones for me and for my family specifically because there is only one store and one way of subscribing and one way of using in-app purchases. I really, really hope Apple win this. I just don't want to have to deal with the possibility that every app is going to have its own in-app-purchase dark patterns.

If everyone that wants to be able to side-load alternate app-stores could move to Android land and leave iOS alone, that would be great.

So you like having only 1 app store for convince. I get that.

But there is an legitimate argument to be made by those who do want it. The lack of competition is probably hurting you too, in the form of higher prices for everything.

If there were alternatives you wouldn't be forecd to use them.

What if apple starts trying to monetize in ways you don't like? (like trying even more aggressively to get appleTV/ AppleMusic subscriptions) You are putting a lot of trust in a company that may change its ways. If they change, where are you going to go?

Not a fan of Apple here, but my parents clearly prefer the Apple experience with IOS, even though they started with Android. I prefer Android, because I'm a developer and I don't need to buy a Mac, get a dev license and use specific IDE and compiler X or Z to develop and deploy an app on my Android device. But common people don't care about that.

It's great but I think being charged 30% on every single app purchase (and yes, you pay that -- not the developers) after paying thousands of dollars for a device is crazy. I know Apple fans aren't particularly price sensitive -- it's a trillion dollar company for a reason.

How many apps do we use that don't have an identical counterpart on another platform? I have an android phone and looking at it, I think the only app I have installed myself that isn't available on the iPhone is an app that lets you write a shader to use as your background.

Totally off-topic but worth mentioning. If you click on the "Cookie Policy" link in the footer, it takes you to the right page, but on that page it's still asking for consent before I can actually read the policy. So many websites gets something so simple wrong, even Epic, Spotify and Tinder. Where are we going really?

Don't want to pay 30%? Don't develop for the platform then. I really think all these guys trying to change a company's own ecosystem's rules that the company itself created, are paid actors. I haven't seen a more flawed argument then knowing the exact rules of the ecosystem, which is owned by a company, and trying to change it. It's their company, their platform, their rules. It's been the same way since the beginning. Get over it. Simple as that.

Agreed and I have to wonder how any of these companies would respond if it was their users who agreed and knew the terms of their ecosystem and were now asking these three companies to change their rules.

Using Spotify as an example. I can't imagine Spotify responding favorably to a consortium of musicians who wanted to publish direct to the platform and receive a better royalty rate for instance. Spotify also doesn't seem to have any problem agreeing to the terms dictated by the Big three record labels that control and the majority of recorded music that they have no choice but to agree to.

Inside the article:

> Other founding members include ProtonMail email service owner Proton Technologies AG, trade group News Media Europe and project-management software maker Basecamp LLC.

Link to the advocacy group page: https://appfairness.org/

I think that some of points are valid - especially the direct contact with the consumers. But the grand prize that Epic wants, the ability for anyone to put App store on iPhone, I hope that will never happen.

I don't care about Epic, but the moment when that is allowed is the moment when three app stores into existence - Google's, Microsoft's and Facebook's. Most people can't avoid using software from these three companies, and right now, on iPhone, Google, FB and MS can track people only when their app is active. With always active app stores the ability for tracking and fingerprinting is much, much bigger, and would negate all recent privacy stuff from Apple.

Why should an App Store need to be always active?

I don't see why they would advocate Apple to change their app store. Is it possible for one corporate to meddle into the product of another? They are also unlikely to achieve anything on the legal side of things.

Instead they 'd better spend for things like :

- promote awareness of monopolistic tactics to apple device owners

- create a well advertised web payments gateway where users can buy subscriptions to any app, and invite developers to join

- syndicalize the hordes of developers to blackout their apps or sth

here, i made a mockup: https://i.imgur.com/P6j3jnd.png

> Is it possible for one corporate to meddle into the product of another

Not really (except via negotiation), but it is possible for the government to. I'm not completely clear on the purpose of this coalition. Presumably it is either too fund lawsuits like Epic's (which is asking the government to stop Apple violating existing anti-trust laws), or to fund lobbying activities (which is asking the government to create stronger anti-trust laws, or to enforce them themselves instead of requiring a third party like Epic to step in and argue that they should be enforced). Or both.

If they don't like the App Store rules, those companies are free to develop, sell, and promote their own cell phone hardware and ecosystem. Nobody is forcing them to use Apple.

To me this seems pretty straightforward. App Stores are directly tied and bundled with the operating system. Within the device universe there are basically 2 choices of operating systems. This is an extremely concentrated industry with an extremely high HHI. Apple and Google favor their own products and discriminate against competitors and have done for years. They also extract rent from other companies forced to use their App Stores far in excess of the services they provide.

MS vs European Commission found that the company illegally bundled Internet Explorer with their Operating System to the detriment of customer and at the expense of other businesses. Almost everything about current OS and App Store bundle seems essentially identical. To me this could not be more clear.

> To me this could not be more clear.

The difference was that Microsoft monopolized the PC OS market.

Apple does not monopolize the cell phone OS market.

Consumers still have total choice between Apple and Android, so it's not an identical situation whatsoever. If Macs had had 50% market share way back when (instead of what, 5%?), Microsoft would never have been in legal trouble for bundling IE.

Competition is good for consumers. It's very brave of Tim Sweeney et al. to take up this cause, and I hope they succeed.

We shouldn't tolerate the monopolies, duopolies, and _opolies of our age. The early 20th century progressives understand how harmful they were to the common man.

Epic went about this all wrong. They should have started by making a public campaign touting their support of developers using Unreal Engine in the App Store.

Epic should have started by offering to cover half of Apple's App Store fee for Unreal Engine devs, and made the story about supporting their own developers AND about how Apple was charging too much.

Any coalition should have been with other companies doing the same thing with people building on their platforms. This would have gotten much more positive and sustainable publicity and would have allowed them to make the case that all developers should be paying less fees.

Instead they made it about Fortnite and themselves. Epic blew this.

I'm not sure how I feel about this. I do appreciate that in the Apple ecosystem, "I'm not the product". There is a level of trust with their products and services that I do feel thankful for and will continue to pay for it. I do not want a different app store. I do not want to have apps direct access to the fundamental iOS services. Don't get me wrong, I really like a lot of the companies that have formed this coalition but I don't think their ask is right. I cannot honestly read about the impact to democracy, primarily because we are unable to define and protect what is private data and what is public, and then agree to what is being asked for by this coalition of partners.

However they promise to safeguard the data, I don't think they have a sound business model / sound business principles / a long enough pedigree of protecting user data for me to trust them. I also see what all of this is about - just a redistribution of the pot of money. This is not about anti-competitiveness, this is not about an Apple Tax hurting consumers (https://www.theverge.com/21445923/platform-fees-apps-games-b...)

I honestly hope that if Apple does lose the anti-trust case, that they split the iPhone into one that allows these non-Apple stores and services and another that offers a Apple managed ecosystem.

I for sure will chose the one that is governed by Apple.

This is what Epic should have done first, before going all guns on Apple.

Perhaps Epic realised that passive approach to bring attention towards Apple's tax like Spotify isn't working and so decided to approach it legally. Then again, it's hard to believe that they thought they had a chance to get a verdict in their favour.

But I don't think the attention they are trying to invoke is that of consumer, if anything it's impossible to invoke a consumer sentiment against Apple which is a aspirational buy for many and even religious investment to some. Epic seems to be targeting other app developers and so far doing a very bad job at it.

IMO, It should have worked with Facebook silently even though it has more to loose with iOS 14's privacy settings than 30% cut[1] to get Facebook, instagram, WhatsApp banned on Appstore if necessary instead of depending upon a game played by children and adults who make money from children watching them play. Just ban WhatsApp in India and see what happens.

But if Apple decides to charge tax for advertisements as well, then it could blow back for everyone who has advertising as business model. I wonder what consumers who buy for Apple's Privacy think about Apple essentially subsidising large advertising business, where as a one man developer has to pay 30% cut.

[1]https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24297854

I don’t think they cared too much if they got a legal ruling on Fortnite in their favor. Fortnite is a fad that everyone has heard of but that is in decline. It was probably perfect for this purpose. I suspect they didn’t expect Apple to go thermonuclear war on them and revoke dev tools access entirely (impacting unreal engine).

I just canceled Spotify membership I had for years for now.

I don't have anything for Spotify or their fight with Apple. It makes sense.

But on the other hand I refuse to help Epic in any initiative they take or to endorse companies that sides with them. Epic is in my eyes evil company and they done a lot of bad things in area I care about. I know that few of my friends do the same right now.

It probably doesn't matter, but the only thing one can do is to vote with their wallet.

> Epic is in my eyes evil company and they done a lot of bad things in area I care about.

Can you elaborate on that? It's hard to follow for me.

Also: You don't give money to epic, you also think the goal of spotify in that case makes sense. But you are willing to hurt a goal that you think makes sense because someone you don't like also thinks that goal is worth fighting for? This seems unnecessary and a bad strategy.

It boggles my mind that there are people rooting for Apple to "win" here. Whatever you think of Epic, Spotify, etc, the changes they propose would be a win for customers to use the devices the way they want to. If you only want to download apps from Apple's approved app store, they are not taking that away from you.

Not everyone values having an open device. Being my family and friends’ on-call tech support tells me this would in fact be a negative.

I bought an Apple phone specifically because it's not open.

I think we should be allowed to have that as much as we're allowed to make a completely open and modular device. I like having the choice to have a locked down, simplistic device. The fewer openings, the better for me there.

Does Apple allow developers to just charge 30% more when users sign up through iOS, and just note in the app that access to the service though iOS costs more?

Seems fair to me, and let’s consumers know where the money is going (to Apple, presumably to pay for ecosystem things like app privacy and security reviews, billing, etc).

If users don’t like it, then the market will do it’s thing right?

It’s unclear to me what types of messaging Apple bans developers from adding though. Like is it ok with Apple for me to build an app available on web for a certain price, but block access via native iOS apps unless the user agrees to a 30% increase to cover the Apple tax?

I think this is what I would want to do if I operated a subscription service available via native app in the app store.

> Does Apple allow developers to just charge 30% more when users sign up through iOS, and just note in the app that access to the service though iOS costs more?

You are allowed to do the former but not the latter.

Oh fuck Tinder:

In addition to being riddled with scammers and "escort" services in some regions and choosing to do nothing about it, older men are charged more for using Tinder's premium service: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24129986

I do not respect Tinder at all. They have scummy practices and I actually got upset with Apple for giving them featured spots on the App Store so often. Talk about biting the hand that feeds you!

On the other hand, Apple unconditionally refunded my Tinder in-app purchase when I fell to one of their scams.

Seeing Tinder in any group will just make me automatically align with that group's antipode.

Chaotic evil.

I'm all for them being shitty enough to drive people off the platform.

https://techcrunch.com/2014/02/20/problem-in-tinder-dating-a...

Sounds real fun! Of course unless you do your research you'd never find out how little they care about user safety.

Since I'm ranting, I don't see getting trapped in the Social Media matrix as being good for anyone. The old fashioned way to meet folks was to be active in your community. Since that's now seen as optional we have an entire generation of isolated miserable people.

The Social Media Dilemma ( Netflix movie )goes into greater detail , but you need real life human interaction to function. I know I've had no issue making friends (etc), since I became social media free.

The world is an awesome place. Instead of wasting money on Tinder Passport, you can get a real passport and see new places. A flight to Europe can be as low as 300$ !

Instead of complaining to one company, why not start supporting existing alternative platforms and products that support their vision? Why not support open devices where developers and consumers will have freedom from exorbitant pricing?

LMAO. Love the consumer friendly positioning of the group. If at least two of the founding members weren’t data over-reachers, this might be good theater. As things are, these folks cannot claim they represent my best interests.

OK, I get that most app publishers can't afford not to sell via the App Store and that iThings are ubiquitous, and I support freer options everywhere (even for Apple users)…

But, come on — this initiative sounds a lot like:

“Drat! We want people who, on their own volition, decided to go for an expensive, unaccountable, closed, locked system to be able to install and use our apps freely! Isn't that fair? I can has freedom?”.

Read that naïve section “our vision”. A vision is something novel. Free software is 35+ years old. And there are open distribution platforms already. Reinventing the wheel.

https://appfairness.org/our-vision/

On this page I can't even scroll, both with iPad and Mac.

I mean Epic, Spotify, and Tinder are wrong here. Apple built the hardware, and the distribution mechanism for software on that hardware platform. Apple has been a closed ecosystem from day 1. It shouldn't have come as a surprise to anyone and they all knew when they decided to create apps for iOS that they were party to a closed system where Apple are the gatekeepers. Don't like their rules? Then, don't do business on their App Store. Simple as that really.

What happens if you are fine with those parameters, you build a business on iOS, and then apple decides that it wants to be in your business, so it makes their own competing app default and non removable? Then it adds hardware functionality to help its own software, but locks the hardware from you, so your business suffers? This is exactly the Tile example on the linked page.

If that happened to your business, would you say "well we always knew they are a closed system, time to pack up and go home"?

Undismissable full-screen modal that forces me to get all cookies? Not gonna read it mate. You would expect an advocacy group to try and get their message out...

It is absolute insanity that they charge a 30% fee to buy some services like Fortnite, Tinder, etc, but then charge NOTHING if I buy from Amazon or Instacart.

Why is Microsoft not in on this? Apple didn't allow Xbox Game Pass, while Samsung was proudly showcasing gaming on their phones on it.

They seem to be the most hard done by unfair Apple practices. As far as I understand, they are not allowing the gaming service at all when it for all intents is nothing different from Netflix in principle.

I certainly hope Microsoft joins in on this and not cut a side deal, it will hurt other devs in the long run.

Microsoft does not allow anyone else to sell digital Xbox games.

This is the crux of all of this. Apple is doing what everyone else is doing. Google charges 30% and kicked Fortnite off the play store. Steam charges 15-30%. Microsoft and Sony have a monopoly on digital distribution of games on their console platforms, and charge some percent that I can't easily find.

Hell, if you take this thought to conclusion, Epic has a monopoly on the Fortnite digital store.

The idea that Apple is a monopoly is pretty silly. There is obviously smartphone competition, and Apple is a minority player. The idea that Apple has a monopoly on iOS and the App Store is true... but if that is illegal then it should also be illegal for Epic to have a monopoly on skins in Rocket League. I find that to be a pretty preposterous proposition.

Ooh are we doing analogies? I’ve got one:

Epic and Tinder are like crocodiles asking for bridges to be torn down so more people will swim through river.

If any one thinks these guys are benign and not doing this for greed... then boy, I really hope you get what you want on Android or PC, but please, don’t loose those crocs into the only platform left in the world where they are not allowed free reign.

Corporations can do whatever they want with regards to limiting speech and throwing people out. Depending on or demanding fairness from corporations is the fundamental problem. If you want fairness, nonprofit hardware and software platforms are the only way out. Unions, petitions, and PACs aren't going to change the profit motives of FAANG/YT.

As an Android user, DAE wish we could see some similar collaboration across some of the vendors running downstream forks? The Apple tax comes up a lot, but there's a whole separate conversation to be had about Google Play APIs as a major choke point rendering other Android implementations "incompatible."

That's a great idea, Google shouldn't be exempt from criticism and activism just because Android is more open than iOS. It's also a good way to put the irritating "why don't you go after Google too?" whataboutism that abounds in any discussion that critiques Apple.

https://archive.is/4hWZj

A bunch of bullies whining about other bullies. I wish all parties involved a long and perilous battle.

The root of this problem is that iPhones don't allow their owners to install software without jailbreaking their devices.

Any real solution must be pointed at fixing that problem, either convincing people to stop buying Apple devices or beating Apple in the trade war they started.

I bought iPhones for my parents precisely because they can't be tricked into installing software that hasn't been vetted by at least Apple and the software increasingly can't track them.

I paid a premium for that peace of mind.

"The Coalition for App Fairness", I cannot not laugh.

On the stage you have:

Epic - Trying to be the next Valve/Steam. Happy to rip off their customers via in-game transactions.

Spotify - Who rip off artists by either failing or paying very little in royalties.

Tinder - Sells sex.

None of these companies have any care for the actual developer; who are the folk trying to make a living from their creations.

Considering Tinder's parent ( The Match Group ) got sued by the FTC for fraud, not very smart to include them. Intentionally making subscriptions hard to cancel is one of the behaviors Apple's payment system seeks to prevent.

As much as I like Tim Sweeney's arguments for lower royalties, he doesn't have half a toe to stand on.

Don't want to pay the Apple tax, make your own phone. This fairness coalition is free to manufacture Android phones with a no royalties store . Hogan's Law on YouTube has done a very good take on this. The government can not compel two companies to engage in a contract. If I set up a newspaper stand and decide anyone who wants to sell news papers needs to cut me in for 30%, you can't demand special treatment.

I could see Apple making an example out of Epic and banning them for life. You don't sneak in hidden functionality, and then flick it on via a server side command

I agree Epic's arguing in bad faith, but I also don't see why Apple (and other App Store companies, like Google) need to have change legislated upon them (or why this is something that needs to be protested). Apple got to where they are by being a successful platform that attracted users and developers with their walled garden ethos. If in fact that walled garden is bad for users/developers, then there are competitors. If Apple users felt they were getting ripped off (or Apple developers felt it wasn't worth it to develop for Apple platforms) they could go to Windows or Linux/Android.

The only way I can interpret this is that Epic & Friends see Apple has a nice cake which they now want to both have and eat. Given that Apple made the cake and there are other cakes, I think they're being entirely unfair to Apple. If Epic & Friends don't like Apple's rules, they're welcome to get off Apple's platform and focus on other platforms.

I personally don't think it's worth developing for Apple platforms myself, but the argument that developers somehow -have- to develop for Apple platforms is nonsense (the AAA market for games on PC vs Mac makes this obvious). That's only true if you decide you have to reach those users, which is only true if you as the developer decide it's economically worthwhile, in which case you have implicitly agreed that Apple's terms are economically justifiable.

Many good things in history happened because bad people had interest of them happening. At hominem attacks does not invalidate a claim.

P.S. I'm not downvoting but still trying to bring everyone down is a low-quality argument.

Basecamp, Tile, Protonmail are also some big names listed in the site. Even Prepear, the fairly obscure company that ran afoul of Apple’s aggressive trademark protection actions, is a founding member.

I wonder if Telegram will join next. It’s as if they rallied together every company that’s had a news controversy with Apple this past year, at least the ones smaller than FANG.

All three allow games, music, and dating to happen outside of their platforms. The Apple equivalent would be Microsoft not allowing any program being installed from outside their store or Tinder closing down all bars in a city to lower competition.

> Happy to rip off their customers via in-game transactions.

If people are happy and willingly buying skins, dances, and battle passes, that's not a rip-off.

Tinder sells rejections and disappointments too.

70% of Spotify's revenue goes to rights holders. That's not ripping off artists. Streaming royalties have been the largest segment of music rights holder revenue for several years.

The record labels negotiated these deals and had all of the power. Also, all music streaming services have effectively the same deals. Spotify does not have preferential treatment.

Artists can distribute their music without Spotify. Spotify cannot distribute its app to iOS users without Apple.

As an actual game developer I can say that I am very happy to see this happening, and I know for a fact that this is the case of a very large number of devs.

apparently neither does apple

Regardless what you think of Tik Tok, realize that if people controlled the installations on their phones they way they did on their desktops, I don't think the government would make the threat it is. The choke point of a single app store enables lots of things.

> For most purchases made within its App Store, Apple takes 30% of the purchase price. No other transaction fee — in any industry — comes close.

Isn't this blatantly false?

Android's Play Store takes the same 30%, as does Steam. I doubt most physical retailers get significantly less.

I think a solution to the App Store problem is to decentralize it, like the web. So I built a decentralized domain-based Android App Store: https://skydroid.app

If Apple wanted, they could release a decentralized app store relatively quickly, by just allowing Cydia to exists and be installed without having to require root access to the device (actually don't know if Cydia still exists, basically a app for listing/searching/installing/removing apps from any repository online)

I love how these companies are fighting the “good fight” but if I don’t accept their cookies with my Adblock on... oh well I can use the page.

Even tried to only accept necessary cookies but nope... not working

I just feel it’s a bit ironic. :D

Why don't they mention the company which started this 30% business? Why do they lie about Apple being the only company to charge 30% in any industry. What a load of rubbish.

I get that Epic and Spotify may want to create their own "stores". I don't understand what kind of store Tinder would want to create - or perhaps I do ;)

I like both sides of the argument. I would want the Steam store in Xbox or PS. But making that probably will increase the cost of console as they cannot subsidise it.

Maybe i’m oversimplifying the issue, but this can be solved by requiring Apple and Google to allow other app stores to operate on their operating systems.

They should mandate that Apple must allow alternative stores. That will completely solve this problem and many other nasty problems Apple is causing.

To view the article, you need to accept the cookie policy. To read the cookie policy you need to accept the cookie policy. It's 2020. Ok.

"Apple takes 30% of the purchase price. No other transaction fee — in any industry — comes close."

Google's? All video game companies?

UberEats? Steam?

Hilarious that this site doesn't work with Firefox. Animations don't appear to be starting on Firefox Developer Edition.

Don't think epic really is in this for a better world. But heavily regulated app stores by public orgs. I am all for.

Simplest thing to do.

Get out of Apple App store and move onto a Google Play, Galaxy store and plenty of stores out there.

No need to stick to one.

As a small app developer, I’m sure happy to have these three giant companies advocating for “my interests”.

Sheez.

It is very funny to see tile and prepear on the list. Can their intentions be any more clearer?

Good for Epic and co. I wish them the best, and I do hope change is coming.

I came hear for Epic vs Appstores but was served arguments on analogies.

Amazon needs to join. Can’t get books in the kindle app.

Why don't they just get together and make a phone?

Everyone wants the recurring -as-a-service revenue without the R&D expense.

from https://developer.apple.com/support/enrollment/

Do I need to enroll to install apps on a device? No. You can install apps on a device for free with Xcode. You’ll only need to enroll if you’d like to distribute apps, access beta software, and integrate with capabilities such as Siri, Apple Pay, and iCloud.

So, Epic, Spotify and Tinder can make their stores, they just need to automate the process.

You are limited to three total apps installed for free with Xcode, they expire every seven days, have limited API surface access (you can't build a VPN app, for example), and among the things you can't integrate with is push notifications, which is one of the key reasons people build apps in the first place. So uhhh... thanks for playing, but that isn't helpful.

pretty hilarious considering how quick these companies would be to sell data at the drop of a hat. virtue signaling pieces of ...

LOL why does their hero have an android phone

Spotify?

"The Coalition for", um, "App Fairness"?

Yeah. I guess maybe sometimes you have to make a deal with the devil. But as a musician, I can't bring myself to do this one.

This take is as reasonable as any other.

A musician wants to make more money and Spotify fails to pay according to that desire and the comment is rejected?

A developer (or megacorp) wants to make more money and Apple fails to pay according to that desire and now we're in a legitimate discussion?

Haha - this illustrates WHY the app store is so popular.

You've got Match.com (owns tinder). Repeat FTC offender (most scammmers never get the FTC slap on the wrist).

"Match Group also allegedly makes it too difficult to cancel a subscription through “confusing and cumbersome cancellation practices.” The FTC claims users must click through two pages of survey questions and cites a 2015 internal presentation that notes the cancellation flow as “hard to find, tedious and confusing.” “Members often think they’ve cancelled when they have not and end up with unwanted renewals,” More recently they were doing the fake match emails to generate signups. I'm not sure if that case has settled yet.

You've got Epic.

They are pretty famous for targeting kids and getting them to spend their parents money, auto-saving payment info parents may enter to allow a single purchase, microtransactions nightmare and using "v bucks" / bannanas etc to make it less transparent in terms of what things are actually costing. Refund / complaint procedures are horrible. "When Stecklare tried to request a refund from Epic Games, she says, it was like hitting a brick wall. She sent multiple emails over several days but says she received only boilerplate responses."....

Spotify

They find no name bands they don't have to pay to do covers of major musical acts or replace the "best of..." albums with these trash albums. They've also been sued repeatedly over their royalty practices. The lawsuit (below) alleges that Spotify has participated in "an egregious, continuous and ongoing campaign of deliberate copyright infringement" around the mechanical license for many of the songs on its platform.

Having these folks in charge of app subscriptions and setting standards inside the apple walled garden is going to be a TRAIN WRECK if they win this case. So much trust is going to be lost by users who are used to stuff in the apple world not having these and other scammers playing around in it.

Your perspective makes me sad. I'm honestly depressed because people rush to defend bad behavior of their favorite monopoly. Like, physically holding back tears. Serious.

What is wrong with us?

Our computers and technology have been locked down by anti-competitive juggernauts. Our legislators have written laws that cede more of our liberties and privacy. This modern internet sucks so much and I want to go back to when it was free.

I want a world where we're free to install whatever we want on our devices or distribute our hard work to others without having to implement it 5 different ways.

I don't want to be taxed by entities worth trillions. Before they stood up the walls, I could reach all the people I wanted for free. Now they've turned us into poor serfs.

The last bastion, the web, is even under attack by the forces of embrace, extend, extinguish. Mozilla is dying, meanwhile Google is removing support for adblock, removing the URL, promoting web bundles with baked in DRM, ads, and tracking.

These rent-seeking companies took all of the goodwill and amazing technology we developed in the open and they corrupted it. They saw the amazing capabilities we built, and realized exactly how they could adopt it, take control of it, and steer the public into their arms instead.

2020 doesn't suck. Everything since 2010 sucks. And it's getting worse.

> this illustrates WHY the app store is so popular

No it doesn't. The app store is "popular" because Apple users don't have a choice. It's "popular" because they're forced to use it.

I'm neither defending it or criticizing it... but let's not pretend like consumers are choosing the app store.

Users in general are choosing Apple vs Android primarily for reasons that have nothing to do with an app store (i.e. hardware, support, iMessage, branding, etc.) and then simply use whatever app store they're forced to.

Interesting how there's so many posts here attacking the companies behind the action (ad hominem style) by specifying actions that have nothing to do with the abuses Apple and AppStore do.

Is this targeted?

Okay, so what’s wrong with Basecamp, Tile, or Protonmail? What’s nefarious about Prepear?

The standards are already a train wreck, that's the entire issue, along with consumers not having any other choice in how they install apps so popularity can't be measured in the first place.

Also Apple has plenty of supply chain problems and anti-consumer practices that equal and exceed those other issues you named.

You'd be hard pressed to find a company that is popular and doesnt have accusations, haters, and lawsuits for something or other.

It's part of running a complex large business.

This illustrates why the app store is popular, despite all of these companies rolling in money?

TRAIN WRECK, really?

If the app store is so great just open up the platform. People will choose to use Apple's great store.

For reference, all of these practices are abusive and will void the subscription contract in civil law (Europe). Ask for a refund and perform a charge back if they don't refund.

I wrote a detailed article about it, what every developer should know about software subscriptions and civil law: https://thehftguy.com/2020/09/08/what-every-developer-should...

I am sorry but this is nonsense. App store is "popular" because it's the only option. We can try to imagine if it would still be popular with cheaper competition but right now there is one reason for its popularity: there is nothing else.

If trust is indeed lost than people will just use Apple app store knowing full well other ones are unsafe/offer worse experience.

This is completely shameful gaslighting.

All of Epics and Spotify's supposed 'shenanigans' are 100% endorsed by Apple, so your argument is not even an argument.

Did Apple's 'moral App store' stop any of your claimed activity?

No?

So what's your point?

I just can't believe individual citizens would be arbitrary corporate shills for a monopoly.

A lot more vendors need to get together to lobby against anti-competitive practices.

Monopalies become large enough that their existence threatens capitalism itself by controlling the free market through Ill means. Markets are comprised of people, business, and money. when a market is large enough People have a right to conduct their business unduly infringed by it's creator or controller. Anything else is a fascist market that is entirely against capitalism, and therefore should not exist in a free world.

You may like your padded walls and taking authority, but the market does not belong to you. It belongs to the opportunity of business.

That s pure whataboutsm. Nothing stops apple from vetting apps without charging an extortionate 30% tax. They have plenty of money to do that. Or do you imply that apple’s tax deters scammers? Then , how are these companies accepted in the app store?

What do you disagree with on this page?

https://appfairness.org/our-vision/

fock, them, all

Funny thing about a site that is about fairness that doesn't let me 'not accept' the cookie popup at the bottom. Is this even GDPR compatible?

Can users and developers who are in favor of keeping the App Store as is form an advocacy group too?

I’ve been collecting a list of arguments in favor of maintaining the status quo on iOS and I’ve yet to see anyone offer a good solution to these:

---- The problems with letting all apps advertise external payment systems:

• Someone may publish a free app to avoid paying anything to Apple, and then charge users [an asston of] money to ""unlock"" via an alternate payment system.

• Users may not be able to see a list of all in-app purchases (and their guaranteed prices) as they can on the App Store, without downloading the app.

• Sharing your payment details and other information with multiple entities, and having to continually trust each of them (e.g. to not abuse or leak).

• Confused users may clog up Apple's customer support with complaints related to third-party payment systems.

• Angry users may demand Apple to offer refunds for shit that was paid for via third-party payment systems.

---- The problems with allowing third-party app stores on iOS:

• How will iOS sandboxing be enforced for apps delivered via third-party stores? Will those apps still have to be submitted to and signed by Apple?

• Store apps would need the privilege to write binaries on your iPhone. How will that privilege be regulated to prevent abuse? e.g. what happens if a store starts writing malware?

• Users may sometimes have to wait longer for an app to update on one store than on others (as already happens on Steam vs GoG).

• Developers would no longer be assured that they will have access to literally all the users that iOS has, by publishing on just one store.

• You would have to submit to each store, wait for approval on each of them, update for each of them... to come close to the userbase that you can currently access by just publishing once on the App Store.

• Developers will no longer all play by the same rules. One store may allow some content while another may prohibit it.

• Controversial content like porn may still ultimately be bound by Apple's ruling on such matters, rendering moot the freedom of third-party stores in what kind of apps they may offer.

• iOS Parental Control and Screen Time restrictions may be ineffective on other stores (and browsers too if third-party rendering engines were allowed).

• If an app or game is exclusive to a store that a user isn't already using, they would have to create a new account and maintain an additional app just to access that one exclusive.

• Not all stores may be compatible with the iOS backup and restore system, or the APIs for app-thinning and on-demand resources.

----

To resolve many of those issues, Apple would have to ultimately step in anyway.

The need for third-party stores is really not that great to offset the advantages offered by the current system.

> One store may allow some content while another may prohibit it.

Yes, that's a good thing.

> How will iOS sandboxing be enforced for apps delivered via third-party stores?

This seems like a non-problem. Sandboxing is a local OS feature.

> e.g. what happens if a store starts writing malware?

The same thing that happens when the apple and google app stores do that. Reputation loss, or more likely: Nothing.

> How will that privilege be regulated to prevent abuse?

Why does it have to be? Why can't the used give an app the permission to act as an app store and install apps? This permission exists in android but can only be granted by the phone vendor (or google)

> Controversial content like porn may still ultimately be bound by Apple's ruling on such matters, rendering moot the freedom of third-party stores in what kind of apps they may offer.

It shouldn't be.

> iOS Parental Control and Screen Time restrictions may be ineffective on other stores (and browsers too if third-party rendering engines were allowed).

How so? Especially screen time restrictions is a non-issue for different stores. How is the rendering engine for a browser the restricting factor for content control?

All other points are questions of convenience.

Also many of these problems have the opposite too:

* What about content that is deemed inappropriate by apple, but users don't share that value judgement? * What about web features that are not implemented by safari, but users might want? * What about apps that are not implemented for iOS because the developers don't want to or can not abide by apples rules or got removed by apple for no clear reason?

>Someone may publish a free app to avoid paying anything to Apple, and then charge users [an asston of] money to ""unlock"" via an alternate payment system.

So don't use that app.

>Users may not be able to see a list of all in-app purchases (and their guaranteed prices) as they can on the App Store, without downloading the app.

If a store is missing a feature you want, you can simply choose not to use it.

>Sharing your payment details and other information with multiple entities, and having to continually trust each of them (e.g. to not abuse or leak).

This is a real problem, but solving it with an app store monopoly is a case of the cure being worse than the disease. Besides, I think the risks of sharing you credit card number are wildly overstated. You can issue a chargeback on any transaction, and reverse fraudulent purchases.

>Confused users may clog up Apple's customer support with complaints related to third-party payment systems.

Confused users already have enough complaints to clog up Apple's customer support with. Apple can just tell them to contact the third party's support.

>Angry users may demand Apple to offer refunds for shit that was paid for via third-party payment systems.

And Apple may tell them no. They're adults, the made a decision, now they have to live with the consequences.

>How will iOS sandboxing be enforced for apps delivered via third-party stores? Will those apps still have to be submitted to and signed by Apple?

That's not how sandboxing works.

>Store apps would need the privilege to write binaries on your iPhone. How will that privilege be regulated to prevent abuse? e.g. what happens if a store starts writing malware?

Malware is software that acts against the interests of the user. Nobody can know what the user wants except the user themself, so it must be the user's responsibility to install only the apps that they want on their device. This is already the current situation, since malware exists on the Apple App Store.

It's worth noting the although I'm technically on Epic's side here, I don't trust Epic and I would not install any of their software on one of my computers.

>Users may sometimes have to wait longer for an app to update on one store than on others (as already happens on Steam vs GoG).

Sometimes there are good reasons for this. For example, F-Droid users usually have to wait longer for updates than Google Play users, since F-Droid has a much more thorough review process. I think it's worth waiting longer so that I know the app hasn't introduces anti-features with its updates. Other people might disagree, and prefer getting updates as fast as possible. That's fine, Android allows multiple app stores so we can both get what we want.

I think this is also an interesting point: We've talked a lot about users who think the Apple App Store's rules are too strict but what about the users who think they aren't strict enough?

>Developers would no longer be assured that they will have access to literally all the users that iOS has, by publishing on just one store.

The Apple App Store will still be installed on every iOS device, unless you choose to remove it. No one is arguing otherwise.

>You would have to submit to each store, wait for approval on each of them, update for each of them... to come close to the userbase that you can currently access by just publishing once on the App Store.

Maybe so, but this is a relatively minor inconvenience, and apps are still free to choose to provide their app only on the Apple App Store, which every iPhone will have except where the user chose to remove it.

Nice.

But, can we just say: fck Fortnite. This is the wolf calling for homes to be built of straw. We hate “free to play”/“pay to win” and in-app purchases. We HATE* them. Thank god that Apple is taking a stand. I haven’t been so happy with a company since they refused to unlock that dude’s phone in California a few years back. (Which, I know, the lawsuit ended the same day an iOS “security” patch came out.) Seriously. If you can’t make money by playing by the rules, GTFO.

> We hate “free to play”/“pay to win” and in-app purchases.

While I'm not a Fortnite player, I thought Fortnite was known for not being pay-to-win, with IAP being for cosmetic options, not in-game advantages; basically selling digital collectibles you can show off while playing.

I think there is a pretty big ethical differentiation between that and F2P games that have you pay for in-game advantages (with the Wargaming.net model where you pay for in-game options that are mostly not competitive advantages but broaden the scope of play choices [because most of the competitive advantage is compensated in matchmaking] somewhere in between.)

Not all F2P + IAP models are the same.

>Thank god that Apple is taking a stand.

What exactly is Apple doing to combat the scourge of “free to play”/“pay to win” and in-app purchases? From where I'm sitting, they seem perfectly fine with it (as long as they get their cut).

Completely disagree. Although I don't play Fortnite, their monetization model is fine. There is no pay to win (don't conflate that with free to play), the only things you can pay for are the battle pass and cosmetic skins. Apex and many other games use this model and it's ultimately good for the consumer in my experience.

Apple just complied with an FBI subpoena this past month:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24495707

Horrible take. Doesn't matter what you think of fortnite(it's not pay to win) Epic succeeding in making their own app store would be incredible for developers and consumers. You seem to be blinded by some sort of misguided rage.

How is Fortnite "pay to win"?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com