Hacker News Reader

Comment by greatgib | Hacker News Reader

Thank you very much Cydia! I was hoping for so long that something like that would come.

I'm always stunned that antitrust authorities do nothing on this topic where in my opinion they should have reacted a long time ago.

I see a lot of people here saying that Apple monopoly is good because they pay to maintain their app store and for the security of the users blablablah.

But no one said that they can't continue their app store with the conditions that they want on it, just it would be fair that any one be able to run competitors app stores with their conditions and the same possibilities as the official one. It's not like anyone will be forced to use another appstore if he wants to stay on apple one for security!

Now, apple world is like if we were living in north korea: we are such morons that the party has to decide everything for us, and finally to their own benefit!

View on HN

> > It’s not like anyone will be forced to use another AppStore if he wants to stay on the apple one for security!

Up until some app you need moves to another store. Then the choice becomes do without or use another app store to get what you need. I don't want to have to shop for iOS apps at the Amazon, Google, and Microsoft stores, each with their own app policies, billing systems, etc... not to mention some other AppStores from some vendors I've never heard of.

For as much as Facebook gets beat up the reality is, it is still popular with people like my parents and other family members. Right now Facebook is not happy about the coming tracking restrictions that Apple wants to apply. Do we not think that Facebook would be the first app to jump ship to a place where Apple rules won't apply to them and drag a lot of people with them into these new AppStores? For some people saying you can't use the Facebook or some other social media app is not an answer.

I am not torn on this at all and that's coming from someone who makes the majority of their income from selling iOS apps. Don't get me wrong I'm happy to only have to pay 15% now rather than 30% but for me, that is still worth the cost for what I get from the overall experience of making and selling apps for iOS and knowing that someone is looking out for my interests as an iOS user.

edit: typos

How would you feel if Apple copied your app, and got to keep 100% of the profits while charging you 30%?

See: Spotify.

I'd feel about the same as I would if anyone copied my apps and took away business from me - not happy.

But if you're trying to point out that it is somehow unfair that Apple has a special position that they can do this and not pay 30% to anyone, well what makes you think that I can move to another iOS app store and compete with their version in their app store by going somewhere else? I certainly don't think I would fair very well. Another AppStore doesn't change that reality.

So are you suggesting that Apple should not be allow to develop and sell apps they make (even if they are doing what my apps do)?

Anyone can always come along and build a better/cheaper mousetrap than I have, that's just reality.

I think there’s a case to be made you might do better if you could offer your product for cheaper on an alternate app store. Price is a powerful incentive and if you offered it at, say, 6.99/mo instead of 9.99/mo that could bring many folks over.

It's a stretch to say that Apple copied Spotify when they had already cornered the online music market years before they released the iPhone - Apple Music is just a subscription to that library of music (of course, licensing prohibiting some songs from being on it).

They've done it to far more companies than just spotify.

I don't understand why you should get all you want. Your demands are unreasonable.

And the fragmentation has already happened anyway; Most lucrative services are mostly web-only, including Amazon and new cloud gaming services.

> It’s not like anyone will be forced to use another AppStore if he wants to stay on the apple one for security!

That’s exactly what is happening on PC gaming right now. Every game comes with it’s own AppStore (or similar bunch of extra software).

I’m torn on this. I do agree with users having more choice, but I also see the huge value of Apple being able to protect user’s privacy and security by having a tight control of the AppStore.

Not just their privacy, but also their financial details.

Competition is key though. Plenty of publishers know that ditching established installers and app stores comes with a price, and so publishing or at least co-publishing on steam/epic/gog/etc is pretty important.

And the consumer experience isn't great when jumping between games during the day means opening 3 different launchers and having them constantly run in the background if you don't manually close them.

I've said this before: if Epic wins the lawsuit, you're going to either see the Epic launcher show up on Xbox, Playstation, and Switch or Epic's going to 'negotiate' with those publishers to get an extra 15% (or more) cut of sales.

I’d rather have that than the current situation on mobile where because of the 30% cut, every game is littered with ads or pay to win tactics to increase their margins. The situation for games on desktop and console and handheld portable consoles is leaps and bounds better than mobile.

I don’t see how a launcher would need to be allowed. Only a new store to purchase. Xbox, PlayStation, etc. could have some policy still that says that when you launch a game it must not spawn any persistent background service or that it must launch directly without a launcher.

Back in ye olden days, apps either shipped with their own updater, or shipped with no updater.

If my understanding of the history is right, that's how Steam was born. A unified update tool for Valve's games. It was pretty cool that all my Valve games were managed in one place! "I wish every company did this!". While it was nice that there was really only one primary place for games (Steam) for a while. And it's really nice when most games can be acquired in one or two places. I think the landscape has changed and "download managers" and their glorified counter part "app stores" are much more common... at least the worst case scenario is what I once wished... "Every company/publisher has their own App Store"

Just my two cents.

Right but to me that seems like a good thing. In fact, don't you think it is a little bit risky to have all your games in the steam library, protected by DRM? What if steam stops being around?

Having different stores also forces these publishers to be more creative to get people on their platforms, see the weekly free games in the Epic Games Launcher.

If there was no competition, there wouldn't be the possibility to buy DRM free games on GOG for example.

With multiple app stores Apple will lose some ability to force app vendors to follow good privacy practices. For example, if Facebook violates Apple’s privacy policy now they can’t be on iOS. In a world of multiple stores Facebook can just move themselves to a 3rd party store. The current set up makes it so that Facebook is available AND they are limited in how much information they can siphon off from you.

If it becomes the norm to use app stores that enforce no standards, then a lot of the privacy protections for using iOS will be gone.

As long as the Apple appstore rules and support are reasonable, there's going to be a balance where being in the default appstore is very profitable / better than potential gain from use abuse. Phrased differently, if it becomes Apple's goal to be the appstore of choice for publishers and the safest option for customers, we all win.

Apple will always have control over what the apps can ultimately do using their APIs. If they don't expose "read all contacts without explicit confirmation" then even third party store apps won't be able to achieve that.

I understand your argument, but it considers that Apple is a philanthropic altruistic entity, that has only your best interest in mind when deciding for its "rules".

But, Apple (same as Google) are companies and not foundations. Their only "legal" purpose is to maximize the return on investment for their shareholders.

Take your example, and imagine that it is Facebook the gatekeeper of the unique store?

And if the App Store has so much "privacy" value, why do you think that people will accept to install another AppStore? So, there is no risk of the problem that you describe.

Still, if it is not the case, and people don't care, who is Apple to decide what is good and what is bad for people?

And you see positively their action mostly based on their marketing propaganda, ie that they protect and take care of you. But, for real, they will not hesitate to censor apps or features that are competitors to them, or that threaten their revenues.

And worse, so far they are all scared of possible antitrust issues, but otherwise, the day they will have all the market locked, they will racket everyone as much as possible.

Think about it, some people say that the current appstore "fees" are rights because they need to pay for the service and co. But now, look at Apple financials, their margins, and you can see that very few companies in the world have their level of wealth with hundreds of billions of cash pilling up!

Also, one day, the boss of the company can decide that anything he don't like (ex. Blue candies) will be banned. And the world would have to accept it unilaterally.

To conclude, I would like to paste this nice quote that I just saw on internet:

<< ‘The main effects of monopoly are to misallocate resources, to reduce aggregate welfare, and to redistribute income in favour of monopolists.’ (Harberger, 1954: 2) >>

> Still, if it is not the case, and people don't care, who is Apple to decide what is good and what is bad for people?

I have relinquished that decision to them. There's obviously no market research in this topic but the fact that people only go to the App Store to download apps and need an iCloud account to do so makes it pretty apparent that Apple is running things on their phone. People don't see that as a problem but only because it hasn't directly impacted them, or it has only impacted them in a way that is, in itself, disingenuous (ie piracy) or otherwise not something <society> would back them up on (the break from that being Epic Games' lawsuit where they were removed for offering direct payment - society/their player base is indeed going "yay Epic" and supporting them).

> Take your example, and imagine that it is Facebook the gatekeeper of the unique store?

Key point: Apple isn’t Facebook, and Apple has made it a key of their marketing that they are protecting their user’s privacy. This isn’t a fact that you can gloss over as if they are equivalent companies seeking only profit. Notably, if Apple ceases to protect my privacy, I can move to another platform (one that won’t protect it either, but what can you do?).

We shouldn’t have to rely on Apple, a private company, to regulate tracking of users. There should be actual regulations protecting us such that we’re not at the whim of Apple.

GDPR and CCPA have made significant impacts on user privacy.

Also, Apple can keep enforcing it at the API level and prevent access to identifiable device information, tighten app sandboxes, etc.

"Privacy" is a set of tradeoffs that different people/companies make differently. People who care about Apple's privacy choices can stick to their store, and forgo apps that aren't there. (Besides, Apple gives Chinese users' data to the CCP. There is no reason to believe that they aren't/won't do the same with other demographics. Apple has both supply and demand ties to the CCP.)

While I doubt they can do anything in an antitrust case, they are also dragging their feet on implementing web standards (that have existed in Android for years) so that developers have no alternative but to develop native apps for things that can just as easily be web apps and pay Apple their 30% in the app store.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com