Hacker News Reader

Comment by FreezerburnV | Hacker News Reader

Until the only way to get <app/game> that is either necessary or useful is via another store. e.g.: a transportation app, or something used to interact with family.

I really dislike this constant refrain, because as soon as more stores can be integrated, all bets are off. Everybody who says this gives off the impression they aren't thinking more than 5 minutes into the future and we start seeing stuff like Epic having exclusive games, or Origin, or whatever else. And you better believe someone like Facebook and/or Amazon is going to take advantage of being able to build their own store.

View on HN

So worst case scenario we end up with walled gardens, which is where we are now.

Which, in my opinion, multiple walled gardens is categorically worse than a single walled garden.

It does depend, though. If you look at regulation and market type on a 2x2 grid, as you slide towards the scale of perfectly competitive markets, the requirement to regulate drops to zero. As you go to monopoly, regulation becomes a larger requirement.

So, in the net, a heavily regulated walled garden provides the same utility as a perfectly competitive market. I think Apple can keep their one-store model so long as they abide by comprehensive regulations up-to-and-including lowering commissions and allowing apps to advertise other ways to subscribe outside of IAP.

This is already a problem. Apple banned WhatsApp for ages just because. So you are no worse off than before. Of course, with a competing store Apple will be less likely to ban things arbitrarily...

Well with this WhatsApp would be on the Facebook store along with Facebook, Messenger, Instagram, and anything else they devour along the way. Which will all harvest an infinite number of things from your phone, and you will have zero choice in the matter.

The issues with Apple arbitrarily banning things is a real issue, among others, and I acknowledge that and that these things need to be fixed. But don't throw the baby out with the bath water and make everyone's life who uses iOS more miserable along the way.

Huh? What does iOS have permissions and access control for?

Imagine if nobody stopped companies like Facebook from just digging into and using things like private APIs or doing stuff that bypassed silly things like public/standard APIs that would normally prevent that or ask for permission from the user. It's not like they've done anything like that in the past for things like Android, clearly an upstanding company like Facebook or Amazon would never do that kind of thing in order to gain access to more stuff that normally they would be prevented from.

And no, some researcher finding out about that happening wouldn't really cause them to change their behavior. And even IF somebody outside of the HN bubble found out about it, I doubt the vast majority of people would change their own behavior and get rid of the apps or anything.

Apple is never going to build a perfect OS with no security holes and they'll never be able to 100% guarantee that an app isn't doing something like that. But the threat of having that activity discovered and Apple straight up removing everything from the App Store is enough to kind of force them into being a better actor than they would be if they controlled their own store. (see the incident where Apple found out about something Facebook was doing with their enterprise certificate and then revoked it, crippling tons of internal apps on top of their user-facing stuff)

I don't think they would abuse undocumented APIs or security bugs in the OS for critical functionality:

1. OS patches would break apps making app users unhappy.

2. Patched OS could warn users of exploit attempts, damaging app reputation.

Android doesn't have a Facebook store don't see a reason why they'll have to make one for ios.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com