Hacker News Reader

Comment by maratc | Hacker News Reader

No, as alternate stores will change the experience for everybody.

I download 0 new apps per year, but I use WhatsApp, Outlook, and Google Maps. Today, I get them all from one store - one password to remember, one credit card to have, one stupid set of "security questions" to forget the answers.

Tomorrow, Facebook AppStore will be the only place to get WhatsApp, Microsoft AppStore will be the only place to get Outlook, and Google AppStore will be the only place to get Google Maps, so I will need to download n app stores to get to where I am today. Create n accounts... accept n privacy policies... activate two-factor n times...

Yeah, no, thank you but no. I'm pretty happy with the AppStore as it is, thank you very much.

View on HN

Given that this scenario hasn't happened with Android, which allows sideloading, this argument seems like baseless fearmongering to me.

Play store allows basically anything (including obviously fake/scam/adware/spyware apps), there's nothing to be gained by doing this on Android, you'd lose an easy distribution mechanism that doesn't limit you, helps you gain victims and provides credibility - it's on top of Google then it must be good, right?

Also consider the market share of iOS and Android. Why bother for such small amount of price sensitive users?

iOS is another story entirely. The App Store has a lot of demands on the app developers wrt. UX, compatibility, etc; there's a lot of money to be saved (and faster time to market gained) by not publishing apps there. And then you can also bypass the security/privacy screening.

so you say there are no scam apps on appstore? Asking bc I've read a lot of articles abt scammy aps there and apple is doing nothing to kill these

Given that this scenario has happened on the PC side of things, where I now need to have a Steam store, Epic store, EA Store, Ubi store, and GOG store (it's optional — thanks GOG!), I'd say it's not as baseless.

And that's a good thing. Do you think the situation on Windows would be improved if Microsoft forced everyone to use their store?

There is competition amongst stores and people outright reject software that is exclusive to a store that they do not favor.

> people outright reject software that is exclusive to a store that they do not favor

That's a funny thing to tell to your kid that he's now an outcast in his school because everyone plays that Battlefield game — but his dad "does not favor" EA.

Drop the “app” from store for a second and make your argument again, except imagine a scenario where there is just one physical store for all the consumer goods you need, and you’d be upset about that being broken up because now you’ll be inconvenienced.

But what you won’t be is under the thumb of a single company that has way too much power over you.

I like the experience more than the alternatives, so I'm not ready to switch it for what is for me a worse experience. You probably won't be able to convince me otherwise.

Imagine a scenario where there is a store that requires strict controls on ingredients and supply chain, where if you want your crackers or frozen pizzas or fruit sold there, you have to ensure they are USDA organic, free of GMOs, pesticides, and so on.

But I like Cheez-its, and Cheez-its are NOT USDA organic and the supply chain is full of modern monoculture farmed grain and its full of artificial ingredients. The store refuses to carry it. It's not nice! I like those, why can't I buy them there?

Even if it was the only store in town, and if I live in Anytown I have to shop at the fancy-pants health store, I chose to live in Anytown. I can leave anytime I want. But wait! There are parts of Anytown I really like! It's walkable, and quiet, and safe. I just can't have Cheez-its. It's not nice to make me choose between all of the things I like, and the things I don't! I want to have my cake and eat it to, or, rather, in this case, my Cheez-its.

If Anytown was some small town whose economy can only support one store, sure. But I think in this scenario Anytown is more like NYC. One store is not enough, and saying “if you don’t like it, move” is not really appealing. I’m not going to move, I’m going to get my fellow citizens together and break the damn store up.

I severely doubt that big corps will force side loading their app in iPhone when the easier experience is the iOS AppStore. Same reason why all those apps you mentioned are in the android store and not just apk downloads from their site.

We don't know how this will play out, and probably instead of sideloading the new stores will be downloaded from the app store.

So say you want WhatsApp on your phone.

Today: AppStore - get WhatsApp.

Tomorrow: AppStore - get Facebook store - start Facebook store - get WhatsApp.

The power Facebook (also, Microsoft and Google) have over the users of their apps may be so great that they could pull it.

Small companies? No chance in hell.

So actually, this move might put Apple (and Apple users) into a weaker situation while empowering FB/MS/GOOG and having no effect whatsoever on small app developers.

But apple can ban other stores in it's store. They can say 'we made platform open to sideloading, you can even sideload other stores' in combo with several warnings that sideloading is dangerous when a user attempts to do it. This can guarantee that apps will stay inside appstore bc it will be too hard for users otherwise

Reply on news.ycombinator.com