Sudden outbreak of common sense. I hope this passes and forces Google/Apple to justify the value that their app stores provide, for the amount that they take from developers.
No, the value the store provides is the SDK. Just as Unity requires you to license IP, I haven't seen any evidence to suggest that the is going away, only now developers get to bypass sandbox restrictions and access user data.
From the users point of view side loading allows only a reduction in security. All those tracking restrictions? App Store submission policy. All those raw data access protections? App Store rejecting sandbox features that are unsafe.
There is a reason malware is a huge problem on android but not on iOS.
> No, the value the store provides is the SDK. Just as Unity requires you to license IP
Except Unity doesn't make the only device that Unity games can run on.
Apple should be making their money from the phones, not seeing the phones as a utility to get even more licensing fees ($99/yr, 30% cut of all payments) from developers.
But also doesn't the $99/yr charged to put apps on the store count as a license, making your Unity example sound even more monopolistic for Apple.
Apple makes some on the sale of hardware, but does not charge end users for software updates after then. Unlike google it actually supports that hardware. The support costs money.
You're right that unity wasn't a great example though. A better example would be the xbox, playstation, switch, etc.
The alternative model is you sell out your users, like google does.
> You're right that unity wasn't a great example though. A better example would be the xbox, playstation, switch, etc.
Not really. Gaming consoles are usually sold at loss.
"The reason game consoles end up being profitable is through a combination of software, service, and accessory sales, but it's still surprising to find Microsoft has never achieved hardware profitability"
The average cost of manufacture is a PS5 is $450, the cheap version of a PS5 is $399, so a $60 loss. The platform takes a 30% commission on games the are priced >=$69.99, so at three games per machine they're making a profit.
The average cost of a game on iOS is 48c. Apple takes 14.4c, all that money then does things like supporting devices long after they were sold. Unlike google apple doesn't monetize its users: google continues to make money after devices are sold because the platform itself exists to help their ad business, that means android would still make money for google if they didn't even have their own store.
Add to that apple providing actual major software updates for devices more than 5 years after they were sold - not just security fixes - and I would argue that apple has a greater justification for their commission than Sony or MS do.
The business model shouldn’t decide what’s legal. If it’s legal for Sony, it should be legal for Apple.
Or if you disagree, fine. What’s the threshold? How does the Government acquire the information to determine if enforcement is necessary? What happens if the PS5 console, later in its life, is ever sold for a profit?
I think the argument being made is that hardware companies should be required to sell hardware at break even and provide free services and software to developers.
> There is a reason malware is a huge problem on android but not on iOS.
So it is said, but is this actually true? Anecdotally, my non-technical parents have been android users for 10 years and malware is a non-issue. I'd be interested in data that could demonstrate otherwise.
I tend to side with the tech companies (Apple in particular) due to the security issues and review process. It's not perfect and the cut seems excessive IMO, but there is value there that can't be dismissed outright. It'll be interesting to see how Apple and Google handle this. Maybe they'll allow side-loading with big, scary language? Or perhaps a cheaper or even free tier for developers to allow apps on their respective App stores?
Thanks for that link to Schneier's letter! He breaks down the bills and provides relevant and cogent arguments to both Apple and Google's positions which I hadn't considered.
What's being removed from you again? Don't sideload apps if you don't like sideloading. Keep using Apple's app store if you like it, or maybe in the future, you will find you like an app store better than Apple's. We will never find out if someone does it better than Apple, if nobody can even try.
> What's being removed from you again? Don't sideload apps if you don't like sideloading. Keep using Apple's app store if you like it, or maybe in the future, you will find you like an app store better than Apple's. We will never find out if someone does it better than Apple, if nobody can even try.
Um, the fact I've told any semi-non-competent person to buy iPhone because it very specifically won't screw up like the popup ridden land of Android.
> Um, the fact I've told any semi-non-competent person to buy iPhone because it very specifically won't screw up like the popup ridden land of Android.
How does this relate to your original comment claiming you're losing something you paid for?
And if Apple can't keep the quality of their software from falling to that level, just because of being slightly more open, then that is their failure.
> You know that developers will end up using alternate App Stores
This keeps being stated as though it’s a foregone conclusion. All evidence points to the contrary. Look at Google Play. Android has allowed third-party stores since inception and yet the only stores that see any notable use are the ones that ship on devices, i.e. Google Play and to a much smaller extent OEM stores (at least in the English market).
So no, it is not likely that you will have to install another store. Just like most Android users only ever touch the Play Store most iOS users will only ever touch the App Store.
The only notable stores I expect to see from this are an Epic Games store that basically just has Fortnite on it, and some community-driven F-Droid-like.
What developers will do that? Android has alternate stores, and there isn't any vendor lock-in. The Amazon and Samsung Android alternatives to the Play Store aren't huge competitors. Epic hasn't tried to build their alternative Android app store yet with Fortnite as an exclusive. This is all scare-mongering about what could happen but probably won't happen. Name a single major Android app that's located on an alternative app store.
Apple's centralization is not forcefully removed, you can choose to keep using only Apple approved software from Apple store and you will not see any difference.
This change would just allows you to install software from another source if you wish.
If Apple implements the change similar to how Android works, you will have to allow installation from non-Apple store sources, you can do it per app, you can do it once and then disable it, you can allow main app store to scan all your apps for security.
If you are arguing that some people will be tricked into installing malware from other sources then you are right that this change would allow that but it will still require user to go through few steps which should raise red flags for them. Some people just can't resist pushing that button without thinking and regardless of the consequences and in that case app store safety net is just temporary anyway, they are still exposed to the real world where that will harm them in a more serious way.
> If you are arguing that some people will be tricked into installing malware from other sources then you are right that this change would allow that but it will still require user to go through few steps which should raise red flags for them. Some people just can't resist pushing that button without thinking and regardless of the consequences and in that case app store safety net is just temporary anyway, they are still exposed to the real world where that will harm them in a more serious way.
I seriously could care less what we as HN want out of a phone in a way. We are head strong enough to do something different for ourselves -- literally look at PinePhone, etc.
What I'm concerned about is the trickery that is sinister beyond belief, getting access that they never earned and do not deserve.
we already know it causes malware. Android has demonstrated this very clearly.
You also can't retroactively undo a security hole: once you've installed malicious software the other software on the system by definition can't be trusted.
Android has demonstrated that you can have multiple app stores and that majority of users will happily use the default app store which for vast majority of Android phones is Google Play store.
Allowing app side-loading or different app store is not a security hole.
Using non-approved apps or non-trusted app stores might allow for existing security hole to be exploited more easily but it might also allow for better protection against such security hole by providing better curated app stores for less tech-savvy users.
I purchased my goods with the express contract that the AppStore will be the only way a developer gets access to Apple's APIs, Libraries, and instruction sets for iPhone.
That's the thesis for a treatise I could write. This breaks the contract I had with them upon purchase.
> I purchased my goods with the express contract that the AppStore will be the only way a developer gets access to Apple's APIs, Libraries, and instruction sets for iPhone.
Any software license you may have purchased is a non-exclusive one. Apple can re-license their own software however they wish.
That’s not true though. Users can already sign and sideload apps from a Mac. It’s just that doing so imposes annoyances (have to manually update apps, and resign every week). Allowing proper sideloading would only eliminate annoyances associated with current capabilities.
Don't kid yourself. Definitely not value for money. They're checking that nobody is getting around their pay-to-play walled garden. Any security checking is probably automated and incidental.
Genuine question, do you think that comes free? It costs money to develop these things and having control over the app store allows them to recoup that. I see no problem except maybe it's too expensive for developers. A more reasonable cut should be offered IMO.
Hell, you own the phone, the contract with the carrier, the storage. Apple is like a thug on the street charging a cover charge to go in the club, and they don't own the club or work for them. They just demand money because they're bigger than you.
Android already has side loading, and Epic tried and failed to get a third party store going. I highly doubt this bill will do anything unless it mandates that Google can't mandate Google Play Store as a condition of receiving development support.
F-Droid is great for hackers- a niche subset. Chinese app stores are a special case because of legal and political separation. How successful are Amazon or Samsung's app stores, and do they actually host any popular apps that users can't get on the Play Store?
