[HN Gopher] App Store Arguments
___________________________________________________________________
App Store Arguments
Author : feross
Score : 60 points
Date : 2021-05-25 16:17 UTC (6 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (stratechery.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (stratechery.com)
| ksec wrote:
| I have the similar wish and opinion as Ben Thompson. ( But
| somehow unpopular on HN )
|
| >And, for what it's worth, continue controlling games: I do think
| the App Store is a safer model, particularly for kids, and the
| fact of the matter is that consoles have the same rules.
|
| Move Games away from App Store to Game Store. Keep those 30% cut.
| This way Apple have just protected ~90% of their App Store
| revenue. Like Ben have said, this is similar to console.
|
| >Let developers own their apps, including telling users about
| their websites, and let creatives build relationships with their
| fans instead of intermediating everything.
|
| Not just "creatives", but business to built relationship with
| their customers. Most people will still definitely sign up
| through Apple ID simply due to protection and simplicity. Collect
| flat 10% commission on digital goods with no exemption.
|
| And App Store should approve apps as long as they are legal, fit
| the quality of apps in both UI and security requirement. Not
| because of its political speeches.
|
| Finally Subscription Scams. Something _needs_ to be done. I have
| a few solutions in my head but all of them have major drawbacks.
| cloogshicer wrote:
| I really wish Apple would just allow side loading. This would
| alleviate most concerns and would enable everyone to run any
| software they want on the device they bought.
| Spooky23 wrote:
| They essentially do. I have customers running dozens of apps
| not from the App Store.
| gjsman-1000 wrote:
| The major problem with enabling sideloading from Apple's
| perspective is that if they allowed sideloading, all of the big
| tech companies that compete with Apple would happily,
| immediately, force users to sideload their app.
|
| Case study: Facebook. Hates Apple for the App Tracking
| Transparency prompt. Hates that they get substantially less
| revenue from iPhone users, according to leaked slides, due to
| restrictions on what APIs they can use to fingerprint and track
| users. Hates having a Privacy Label in the App Store. Solution?
| Force users to sideload. They'll most likely do it because they
| want Facebook, Facebook doesn't need to follow Apple's rules
| anymore, problem solved.
|
| In that case, it is less that Apple is afraid of giving users
| the choice, as much as that large apps that people use will
| force users to make the choice for them.
|
| And for that reason, while some users would legitimately _want_
| their iPhones to be able to install apps from anywhere, most
| users hitting the "Allow Sideloading" button would have
| essentially been forced into doing so, without actually wanting
| it.
| [deleted]
| redler wrote:
| Furthermore, any big vendor (e.g. Facebook) with its own vast
| audience and ecosystem would immediately launch its own app
| store, with its own payment model and revenue cut, its own
| exclusive titles, developer relationships, and (one assumes)
| its own vastly more liberal policy with respect to privacy-
| exploitative dark-pattern apps (notwithstanding that Apple's
| app store certainly doesn't restrict all such things). The
| sideloaded Facebook "app" would not simply be Facebook, but
| the Facebook App Store.
| mdoms wrote:
| Sounds like a proper marketplace.
| mcphage wrote:
| Not really--with a marketplace, you can choose to buy a
| product from Store X, or from Store Y. In this future,
| you'll _still_ have no choice which store you 're buying
| a product from. Apps like Facebook aren't fungible. And
| if you want Facebook, you'll have to buy it from the
| Facebook Store, whether you want to or not.
| heavyset_go wrote:
| > _Furthermore, any big vendor (e.g. Facebook) with its own
| vast audience and ecosystem would immediately launch its
| own app store_
|
| And yet there is no precedent for this happening, because
| this didn't happen on Android, Windows or macOS. The Play
| Store shows the same scary privacy warnings the App Store
| does for Facebook, and there still isn't a Facebook app
| store that some people like to fearmonger about.
| notriddle wrote:
| Steam?
| darkwizard42 wrote:
| I think the best example is... Epic Store itself. It is
| full of overpaid-for exclusives and has a huge feature
| disparity with Steam
| gjsman-1000 wrote:
| The Play Store cannot be compared to the iOS App Store,
| the Windows Store, or the macOS App Store because the iOS
| App Store is substantially more stringent than the Play
| Store in what apps are even allowed to request permission
| for, their sandboxing restrictions, and their privacy
| requirements. For example, Google gets more than 10X the
| data from their Android app than they get from their iOS
| app according to estimates. Also, Google Play only shows
| a request for Permissions, while iOS shows the entire
| list of what data is collected that is linked to you, and
| the data that is collected that is not linked to you,
| which means that the "scary privacy warnings" are
| substantially scarier on iOS and don't bear the
| comparison to the permissions-only Play Store.
| darkwizard42 wrote:
| What... the Epic store is the BIGGEST example of this. It
| is a shoddy game store compared to Steam and GOG. Epic
| paid for massive exclusives to make inroads into the PC
| gaming space and their product is full of dark patterns.
| gjsman-1000 wrote:
| And where does that end? Google's got a bunch of apps like
| Gmail and Google Drive, so the Google Play Store for iOS
| would probably enter the ring too.
|
| The point is more that if the App Store is to be the only
| App Store on iOS, and Apple wants to maintain its rules on
| privacy and other systems and not become Android,
| sideloading logically cannot be permitted.
| endemic wrote:
| Not sure if that would be a panacea for Facebook in this
| case. Aren't the privacy controls built into the OS?
| gjsman-1000 wrote:
| Not everything. The transparency prompt would still appear,
| but Facebook wouldn't need to show users that Privacy Label
| in the App Store. They could also access restricted iOS
| Entitlements that the App Store would not permit. These
| entitlements can do things such as "read data from other
| apps" or "see what apps are installed in the system" or
| other functionality that the App Store doesn't allow under
| almost any circumstances.
|
| If sideloading was enabled, Facebook could claim use of
| those entitlements. iOS could potentially show a prompt
| forcing users to OK their use, but Facebook would obviously
| hope most people just tap the button without thinking.
| clairity wrote:
| further toward the ideal consumer outcome, the apple app
| store would be compelled to compete with any other ios app
| store (e.g., cydia) but apple would be allowed to be as
| stringent about security and privacy of the device as
| they'd like (promoting competition in the mobile phone
| market, in addition to the apps/app store market). then,
| facebook couldn't circumvent the protections that consumers
| want in their mobile devices by hopping to another app
| store.
| cloogshicer wrote:
| There is one thing I would like to expand upon in what you
| said:
|
| > Apple is afraid of giving users the choice, as much as that
| large apps that people use will force users to make the
| choice for them.
|
| That assumes that users have no choice but keep using the
| side loaded software. But that's not true. People could just
| stop using Facebook entirely.
|
| I guess the majority wouldn't, but the choice is there at
| least.
|
| In regards to privacy, I agree with Apple's stance. But what
| about other areas? I don't want one single company dictating
| what I can or can't use on my device.
| handrous wrote:
| Right now: I can (I don't, but I could) use Facebook on iOS
| devices _without_ giving them access to a bunch of stuff
| they 'd love to have access to, or letting them do things
| I'd rather they not. Or I can choose not to use it.
|
| Your vision: I can choose not to use Facebook on my iOS
| devices, or else use it but let FB have access to and/or do
| a bunch of stuff I don't want them to.
|
| How's the latter something I'd prefer to the former? All it
| gives me is a worse version of the same to choices from the
| first one.
| gjsman-1000 wrote:
| "People could just stop using Facebook entirely."
|
| If people are still using Facebook, today, knowing all that
| has happened, the odds are most people will continue using
| it though one can dream. I would honestly expect 90%+ of
| Facebook users to sideload if Facebook required it.
|
| "But what about other areas? I don't want one single
| company dictating what I can or can't use on my device."
|
| If you told this to an Apple Engineer, he'd look at you in
| the eye and tell you that the iPhone isn't for you and to
| buy an Android. You have that choice. The iPhone doesn't
| fit your use case and Apple isn't interested in making it
| fit your use case.
| slantyyz wrote:
| > If people are still using Facebook, today, knowing all
| that has happened, the odds are most people will continue
| using it though one can dream. I would honestly expect
| 90%+ of Facebook users to sideload if Facebook required
| it.
|
| Why sideload when you can simply open it up in any mobile
| browser?
| smoldesu wrote:
| > If you told this to an Apple Engineer, he'd look at you
| in the eye and tell you that the iPhone isn't for you and
| to buy an Android.
|
| Easy solution for Apple then: stop selling things
| labelled as "pro". I was already burned when I bought the
| 16 inch Macbook Pro, which was a shockingly incapable and
| undocumented device. Lenovo provides better documentation
| on their entry level laptops than Apple provides for
| their Pros, despite the order of magnitude difference in
| price between both devices. So to the "Apple Engineer"
| out there, I'd encourage you give people the choice
| anyways.
|
| In other words, North Korea doesn't justify their
| atrocities by telling the rest of the world that their
| culture "isn't for them". Apple is no less accountable
| for their own product line, particularly when they're
| some of the most profitable electronic hardware being
| manufactured right now.
| gjsman-1000 wrote:
| Comparing North Korea, a government, with a public
| company in a free society makes no sense and disrespects
| the real atrocities the North Korean people are
| experiencing, because you are comparing their suffering
| to problems you have with your laptop, which is
| appalling.
|
| As for the term "pro" - nobody agrees what "pro" means.
| An art designer might do professional work on a MacBook
| Air, even though you wouldn't call that a "pro" machine.
| Although you might not like the terminology, you should
| have been able to research and know what you were
| getting, and it still absolutely does not bear the
| comparison to North Korea. First world problems compared
| to third world tyranny.
| bardworx wrote:
| You just compared a company that sells a product to an
| autocratic regime...
|
| That's, a bit of a stretch.
| josephcsible wrote:
| > if they allowed sideloading, all of the big tech companies
| that compete with Apple would happily, immediately, force
| users to sideload their app.
|
| Google allows sideloading on Android. Neither Facebook nor
| any other similarly-popular app that I can think of forces
| users to sideload there. Why would it be different on iOS?
| lotsofpulp wrote:
| Does Google currently provide the same abilities to block
| tracking as Apple?
| josephcsible wrote:
| Why does that matter? Why would Apple's technical
| features to block tracking suddenly stop working just
| because an app was sideloaded?
| handrous wrote:
| Not all of the tracking-blocking is technical, and those
| parts _can 't_ be technical, either.
| lotsofpulp wrote:
| Comparing Facebook's decision to not side load on Android
| is not a comparable situation if the incentives to side
| load are not the same.
| JKCalhoun wrote:
| If an app finds a way around Apple's user privacy wall,
| in the App Store it can be pulled.
| tomerico wrote:
| Google play store is less restrictive than Apple's.
|
| With that said, I find the argument weak - it's hard for me
| to believe that sideloading will be a big share of the
| market, as it hasn't caught on in areas where a google is
| restrictive (e.g. adult content).
| BugsJustFindMe wrote:
| > _Why would it be different on iOS?_
|
| Facebook hasn't taken out any full page ads in the New York
| Times, Wall Street Journal, Washington Post, and probably
| others about Google Android not allowing them to track you
| without asking first. Clearly the circumstances are
| different.
| Despegar wrote:
| That's exactly right. Apple is the users' union that protects
| them from developers.
| handrous wrote:
| That's a great way to put it. Absent government bans on a
| bunch of the bad behavior Apple outlaws in its store, I'd
| really rather keep the choice of selecting Apple's "users'
| union".
|
| When spying on users and hoarding the resulting data is
| illegal, and anti-fraud laws and truth-in-advertising laws
| and laws mandating a standard interface for subscription
| management exist or are _much_ better-enforced, then, sure,
| let 's grab the torches and pitchforks and burn down the
| App Store. Meanwhile, I'm paying Apple to be my private
| regulation agency, backed by their sheer size (as a
| company, and of their market) to prevent companies and
| developers from simply refusing to do business with them
| (and so, not forcing, but strongly encouraging them to
| provide me with regulation-compliant products and
| services).
| asiachick wrote:
| there is zero evidence this is true. none of those companies
| are asking users to sideload on Android.
| gjsman-1000 wrote:
| Actually, there is much evidence. The Google Play Store is
| _significantly less_ stringent on Android than iOS. For
| example, Google is estimated to get _less than 1 /10th_ the
| data from an iOS user as an Android user. The Play Store
| also, currently, doesn't effectively enforce the use of
| Google In-App-Purchase.
|
| Because of that, there are less reasons to sideload away
| from the Play Store (from a company's perspective) as there
| are on iOS.
| my123 wrote:
| > The Play Store also, currently, doesn't effectively
| enforce the use of Google In-App-Purchase.
|
| https://www.cnbc.com/2020/09/28/google-to-
| enforce-30percent-...
|
| Starting from September 30, that's no longer the case.
| gnopgnip wrote:
| This isn't the case though. Anyone can install Facebook, or
| Apple music, Netflix, any of the Microsoft or Amazon apps on
| Android through the play store, without needing to sideload.
| CubsFan1060 wrote:
| But Epic is suing google too.
| heavyset_go wrote:
| That's because Google is also engaging in anti-competitive
| behavior, and abuse their duopoly with Apple in the mobile
| app distribution market.
|
| User installable 3rd party mobile app stores cannot implement
| automatic upgrades, background installation of apps, or batch
| installs of apps like the Play Store can. These limitations
| are designed by Google and are implemented in Android.
|
| If the user tries to install an app on their own, they're
| shown scary warnings and must adjust arcane settings, but if
| they use Google's Play Store, no scary warnings are shown and
| no settings need to be adjusted. They're told they're
| "protected" by Play Protect, but aren't shown scary warnings
| about the fact that the Play Store is the main distribution
| method for malware on Android[1] when they go to install apps
| with it.
|
| The Play Store isn't alone in being a vector for malware, as
| Apple's App Store is responsible for nearly half of a billion
| malware installs of just XcodeGhost alone[2].
|
| Like Apple, Google also mandates that apps distributed via
| the Play Store must use Google's payment system[3], and give
| Google a 15% to 30% cut of revenue:
|
| > _Developers charging for apps and downloads from Google
| Play must use Google Play 's billing system as the method of
| payment._
|
| [1] https://www.zdnet.com/article/play-store-identified-as-
| main-...
|
| [2] https://www.vice.com/en/article/n7bbmz/the-fortnite-
| trial-is...
|
| [3] https://support.google.com/googleplay/android-
| developer/answ...
| paxys wrote:
| That one is because Google forced OnePlus and LG to back out
| of their deal with Epic to preload the non Play Store version
| of Fortnite on their devices by default -
| https://www.theverge.com/2020/8/13/21368395/fortnite-epic-
| ga...
| mrtksn wrote:
| I think the correct wording should be "I really wish Apple
| would just make it easy side loading". I wish it too.
|
| I know how unpopular this is but I will say it anyway, I can't
| stand it and I am willing to sacrifice a few karma points to
| convey the message.
|
| I have distaste against the claim that Apple is not allowing
| people do something on their device because this is technically
| false. What Apple is not allowing is using its App distribution
| platform outside of their store rules.
|
| What Apple is not helping with is side loading. They don't have
| a say on what you install on your phone but they have a say on
| what you can distribute on their App Store. That's why it's the
| developers that are suing, not the users.
|
| However hard it is, you have all the rights to run whatever you
| like on your device you purchased. The "Apple doesn't allow you
| to install apps, you don't own the device" is a fallacy.
|
| You can pay for the convenience(get a developer account, use
| the Apple toolchain to install your apps) or hack your device
| and run whatever you want on it and both are completely O.K.
|
| At the time of purchase you don't sign anything preventing you
| from doing it, consumer devices are not like those developer
| devices that apple sells or send upon limited use or NDA
| agreements. You are free to do whatever you like to your
| device. Install a Chromium engine or blend it for YouTube
| views, it's up to you. You are only limited with your local
| laws, so dispose it's battery responsibly and that's it.
| blintz wrote:
| >However hard it is, you have all the rights to run whatever
| you like on your device you purchased.
|
| This is patently false. Many entitlements are locked behind
| explicit, human approval from the Apple Developer Program;
| examples include NFC with payment-related Application IDs and
| Multicast Networking. You actually have to submit a request
| that basically goes 'Please can I write software for this
| device?' to use that hardware on the device (see
| https://developer.apple.com/news/?id=0oi77447). You
| emphatically are NOT able to run 'whatever you like'.
| mrtksn wrote:
| Apple can't lock physics.
|
| However Apple can lock their software. The software is
| licensed, you don't buy that but licence it like Photoshop.
| Adobe also doesn't provide you with an easy way to do your
| taxes on Photoshop but I'm yet hear to claim that Adobe is
| preventing us from doing our taxes.(I couldn't think out of
| my head a major software that's not on subscription model,
| hmm)
|
| Remove it and install something like Android on it, it is
| hard but it has been done before.
|
| I simply don't see how Apple is obligated to make it easy
| or create tools for doing it. It's not promised upon
| purchase or on any advertisement materials.
|
| It's not different than complaining that Apple does not let
| you use your phone as pocket heater through heating the Qi
| coil.
| agogdog wrote:
| Apple is moving in the opposite direction in macOS, so I
| wouldn't hold my breath on them choosing to do this whatsoever.
| Sideloading goes against their entire iOS app philosophy.
|
| This would also mean that Facebook would start sideloading and
| attempt to circumvent any of the tracking/privacy enhancements
| they've built in to iOS.
| musicale wrote:
| > I really wish Apple would just allow side loading
|
| They used to, more or less, either using a development/test
| certificate or an enterprise certificate. I believe Apple
| cracked down after this was taken advantage of at scale by
| Facebook and Google, as well as developers of other apps which
| would typically be banned from the App store.
|
| https://www.macrumors.com/2019/02/13/apple-enterprise-progra...
| easton wrote:
| The IP argument seems a bit hollow to me, since Apple would've
| had to build probably upwards of 70% of the API surface for iOS
| just for their internal apps (and when they launched the iPhone
| SDK, they repeatedly pushed that developers were using the same
| tools they used to build the core apps). And even if that is
| true, the total cost of development of iOS is probably paid for
| by the sale of the devices. The phone is nothing without a way
| for someone to write software for it, whether it's Apple or a
| third-party.
|
| I wonder how long until Apple finds the people who made the "you
| wouldn't steal a car" advertisement for the MPAA and gets them to
| make "you wouldn't offer your own payment method for digital
| goods".
| Despegar wrote:
| >The IP argument seems a bit hollow to me, since Apple would've
| had to build probably upwards of 70% of the API surface for iOS
| just for their internal apps (and when they launched the iPhone
| SDK, they repeatedly pushed that developers were using the same
| tools they used to build the core apps).
|
| Does Amazon build separate warehouses for third-party goods?
| All you're saying is that software is a good business, which
| everyone already knows.
| paxys wrote:
| Regardless of the outcome, it is clear that the trial (and the
| inevitable appeals) is going to leave its mark on the future of
| app stores and digital distribution. What started as a dispute
| over a random game turned into possibly the highest profile
| lawsuit Apple has had to fight. They made Tim Cook take the stand
| for the first time in his life. A lot of damaging PR was
| unearthed. Apple and others have already announced concessions
| for developers in the last few months (like cutting the rate to
| 15% for the first $1M in revenue, followed closely by Google who
| did the same). Antitrust investigations in the EU and other
| jurisdictions are picking up steam. This saga is far from over.
| Dracophoenix wrote:
| It seems that this saga goes far beyond Apple. The bigger
| question this will probably lead to is to what extent operating
| systems/platforms/intellectual property fully belong to a
| person or entity. How much of it should be "shared" if at all?
| This will affect game consoles, ATMs, automobiles, and anything
| with an electronic circuit. It's a property rights conundrum
| fit for the 21st century.
| enos_feedler wrote:
| Ben argues that even the Apple question is murky enough to
| make it impractical for regulation to step in. Expanding the
| question only muddies the waters even more. For any actual
| change to occur the underlying issue needs more focus and
| clarity. I would say follow the email trails and focus more
| specifically on Spotify, iBooks and conflict of interest
| halostatue wrote:
| It's impractical for the courts to regulate. Congress can
| pass laws about this sort of behaviour if they wish.
| Dracophoenix wrote:
| I doubt it's within Congress's ability or capability. In
| addition to property rights, this case also involves
| freedom of speech and association. Congress can't make
| any laws abridging Apple's freedoms at the expense of the
| consumer's/developer's or vice versa. The courts don't
| exist to regulate, they exist to interpret their
| impartial findings on the basis of current law. What's
| needed is an answer to these questions and there's no
| better place to do it than in the courts.
| paxys wrote:
| The question of ownership will definitely have to be answered
| soon enough, as people who have been purchasing digital
| content over the last 20-30 years start to die. If my dad
| spent hundreds or thousands of dollars purchasing Beatles
| albums and memorabilia do I have the right to inherit it?
| Apple says no, but I bet courts in most jurisdictions will
| disagree.
| Ashanmaril wrote:
| We're also now reaching the point where the game consoles
| that first enabled purchasing games digitally are having
| their storefronts taken down, and suddenly everyone is
| realizing that their hundreds or even thousands of dollars
| in digital purchases can just be revoked on a whim.
| asimpletune wrote:
| > What I wish would happen -- and yes, I know this is naive and
| stupid and probably fruitless -- is that Apple would just give
| the slightest bit of ground.
|
| Does anyone know if there's a strategic legal reason Apple hasn't
| done this (beyond the small developer program)? Like, imagine
| tomorrow they give ground. What op-eds would I read in the WSJ
| about how they've exposed themselves x, y, z problems?
|
| I mean this in the legal sense, not the obvious, usual slippery
| slope.
|
| One thing that really struck me in this article was Phil
| Schiller's email about sort of capping the rule after Apple takes
| in $1B in profit. I thought that was a very sweet and kind thing
| to suggest. Maybe the number is wrong, maybe the motivation is
| wrong, but I do like the spirit of this.
|
| Basically, "fair" is hard to define. As stated in the article,
| literally everyone has good points. In cases like this, when fair
| in some kind of algebraic sense is impossible, maybe the easiest
| and best way to approach it is to say "fair is when everyone is
| more or less ok". Maybe that's the case now, maybe that's the
| sentiment that Phil was putting fourth. I wonder what that
| version of "fair" would like like today? Or maybe that's exactly
| what the small developer program is. Like, you don't have to pay
| that much unless you're making $1M or more. I know I would be
| very happy as a developer to have an app like this, and anything
| beyond that I'd probably be totally sucked into a money crazed
| world anyway, and probably miserable.
| jbverschoor wrote:
| > In this world you don't need 1,000 true fans to make a living;
| you need 1,786 -- 536 fans to pay Apple, 253 fans to pay Twitter,
| and only then the 1,000 that make it possible to create something
| new. It is inevitable that some number of businesses never get
| started, because of this deadweight loss.
|
| So when is Epic going to sue the federal and state tax
| organizations? They're taking in some case up to 50% (VAT +
| corporate tax)
| smoldesu wrote:
| Governments can't feasibly sustain themselves without taxation.
| Apple already drives industry-leading profit margins on their
| hardware side, so nobody's really fooled when the largest
| company in the world complains about how hard it is to turn a
| buck.
| nxc18 wrote:
| I love my iPhone and solidly side with Apple in this case, and
| have ditched Spotify due to their spiteful position. Fuck Epic.
|
| Still, I totally agree with this:
|
| > What I wish would happen -- and yes, I know this is naive and
| stupid and probably fruitless -- is that Apple would just give
| the slightest bit of ground.
|
| They could have bought a lot of good will if they just changed
| their fee model slightly for subscription and purchasing apps. It
| is totally reasonable to require that app subscriptions are done
| in store, but for services like Spotify, Kindle, etc, there
| should be options to buy in app. Apple could even require that
| they process transactions, but just not take a cut.
|
| App store-based subcriptions add a lot of value, enough to
| justify a small premium. As a consumer, I like having one place
| to go to cancel my subscriptions. I don't have to worry about
| being tricked into an auto-renewal. I don't see a problem getting
| rid of anti-steering if the fee is reduced; my time is valuable
| enough that I'm not going to jump through hoops to save 10%, and
| I suspect that is true for much of Apple's customers (I'm told
| day after day that iPhones are just for rich, elitist people,
| despite TCO often being lower than Android).
| simion314 wrote:
| I think Apple could done something like " any application that
| has payments should offer an Apple Pay option" but not force
| prices for outside the store or other payment methods or only
| Apple pay. With this scheme Apple Pay fans can use it for
| everything.
| makecheck wrote:
| Too much credit is given to the concept of "just using another
| phone", whether it is for a user or a developer.
|
| As a user, no way I would just toss aside years of app purchases
| and past experiences on one platform to suddenly decide to
| switch. Sure, some people do but _generally_ they don't.
| Switching cost applies to lots of things, not just phones, yet
| the inability of app stores to transfer proof of purchase makes
| this cost higher than it would normally be.
|
| As a developer, like it or not you _will_ depend on some (usually
| large) percentage of APIs available only on your first chosen
| platform. Probably even the programming language! And for the
| most unfortunate of businesses, a ton of this effort will be
| spent up front before even knowing if some new idea for an app
| will be denied entry to the App Store due to some unwritten rule
| (or worse, denied a few years in as the rules shift). If you
| reach the conclusion that you picked the wrong first platform,
| most developers are not "free" to "just" pick another phone
| /platform and make it all work out before going broke.
| withinboredom wrote:
| I had some success reaching out to android devs for a voucher
| on iOS when I switched. My success was mostly limited to
| finding contact information. When I did, a few answered with a
| voucher. Most didn't reply.
| anupamchugh wrote:
| This is well put. My primarily concern with Apple is their lack
| of ability to weed out scam apps from the App Store. Thousands of
| dollars are burned every year only because the regular non-tech
| savvy isn't given the dumb transparent information about
| purchases.
| zepto wrote:
| > My primarily concern with Apple is their lack of ability to
| weed out scam apps from the App Store.
|
| Apple weeds out a huge number of scams from the app stores.
| Their ability to do so is enormous.
|
| Removing Apple from the equation would massively increase the
| number of scams.
| darkwizard42 wrote:
| I mean they must knock out a TON of bad apps and actors. I
| think it is pretty known that the Google Play store is much
| further fraught with scammy apps than Apple.
|
| A way to maybe rationalize it (not saying it is acceptable, but
| just the reasoning) is that we don't scrap our antivirus
| software because it failed to block EVERY SINGLE virus... we
| keep it because we know it blocks a vast majority of the
| problems that might affect the computer.
|
| For the point around purchases, Apple owning the App Store
| wholesale has led to helpful regulation of how in-app purchases
| work, how subscriptions can be used, how refunding policy on
| app purchases works. All this would likely get worse if every
| company pushed their app as an exclusive through their own
| third-party app store...
| josephcsible wrote:
| First of all, a lot of people have scrapped their antivirus.
| And second, the problems caused by antivirus false positives
| are way less bad than the problems caused by all the non-
| malicious apps Apple has rejected.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2021-05-25 23:01 UTC)