Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

When Google was forced by the EU to provide prominent search engine options during Android setup, did that mean that Google as a search engine went away? Did all of your search results became crap because DuckDuckGo was available on the device now?

Or were consumers free to keep using Google search the same way they always had, and was there literally no downside at all to the people who wanted to keep using Google?

Nobody is talking about forcing you to sideload apps. If you want to stay in your walled garden, stay there. But the rest of us should get a choice.

There are a bunch of people on HN arguing simultaneously that:

A) Consumers want Apple's walled garden and Apple is meeting their needs,

and

B) The option to install apps from a 3rd party source would immediately cause consumers to jump ship from Apple's official store, and there would be no incentive for companies to release apps on the official store, and security on the device would be ruined forever.

Both of those arguments can't be true at the same time. If you're providing a service that consumers want, you don't have to force them into it. If forcing consumers not to sideload apps is the only reason why consumers use Apple's store, then maybe that's a good sign that consumers don't want what Apple is providing.

If consumers do want what Apple is offering, if consumers do want a unified storefront with strict moderation for everything, then there'll still be plenty of market pressure for most commercial apps to release on the official store.



> A) Consumers want Apple's walled garden and Apple is meeting their needs,

> and

> B) The option to install apps from a 3rd party source would immediately mean that consumers all jump ship from Apple's official store and there would be no incentive for companies to release apps on the official store, and security on the device would be ruined forever.

> Both of those arguments can't be true at the same time. If you're providing a service that consumers want, you don't have to force them into it. If forcing consumers not to sideload apps is the only reason why consumers use Apple's store, then maybe that's a good sign that consumers don't want what Apple is providing.

The reason this looks like a contradiction is because it's not the actual position.

Mine, at least, is that 1) yes to A, and I'm not speculating, I personally feel that way as an iOS user, but then 2) no, on B: the concern isn't that users will jump ship from the App Store (I don't care, why would I?) but that developers will (and that I care about).


> the concern isn't that users will jump ship from the App Store [...] but that developers will

What is the practical difference to you, as a user, between:

A) Not being able to install Fortnite because it's only available on a third-party iOS storefront,

and

B) Not being able to install Fortnite because it's not available on iOS.

If apps jump ship from the official store, you personally as a security-conscious user won't be able to install them. But if apps jump ship from iOS, you also won't be able to install them. So who cares if developers move off the official iOS store? Aren't they already free to do so today?

----

I'm going to go out on a limb and say the difference is that (deep down) we all know that Epic is right, and Apple really is one half of a duopoly -- a half that controls over 50% of the entire mobile app store revenue in the US -- and that it would be insane for an app like Fortnite to drop iOS. I think the difference between the scenarios above is that (deep down) both you and I know that Fortnite isn't really free to abandon iOS as a platform, and that the stranglehold iOS has over the market is the only reason apps like Fortnite are on iOS in the first place.

We know that given the choice, consumers and developers would both choose a more open device. And we know that the only reason the closed ecosystem works at all is because many developers and users don't have a realistic choice about whether or not to accept Apple's terms.

The reason people see the two scenarios I list above as different is because, yeah, all of us on HN do actually know that Fortnite doesn't really have the option to walk away from Apple devices, and without a 3rd-party store Epic will be forced to agree to pretty much any terms that Apple requires -- they have no negotiating power. And once we admit that, then it becomes a lot more obvious why developers are asking for some kind of regulation around app store policies.

If dropping iOS and supporting only Android or PC was actually a realistic, sufficient option for most developers, then you wouldn't be worried that they'd all jump ship the moment they had a 3rd-party store as an option on iOS -- those developers would have already left the Apple app store (and iOS) behind.


I absolutely agree. Forcing developers to abide by their store & platform rules if they want to sell to iOS users, coupled with the fact that of course everyone does want to sell to iOS users, is definitely a big part of why I find iOS so nice.

I also think smaller-time developers are underestimating the degree to which Apple's iOS market is attractive precisely because of the equilibrium brought about by that situation, and the overall value it brings to the user, and their consequent willingness to spend money there, as they cheer Epic on. Maybe I'm wrong and none of the market-creating rules Apple's enforced have anything to do with it, but I suspect too many tweaks may not kill that golden goose, but might well reduce its rate of egg-laying.

As I've repeated many times here, now, though, I'd love to see more platforms compete with iOS. Not with the app store. With iOS and its overall ecosystem.


> As I've repeated many times here, now, though, I'd love to see more platforms compete with iOS. Not with the app store. With iOS and its overall ecosystem.

Isn't that a contradiction? App Store _IS_ "its overall ecosystem".


I mean another App Store with its own captured platform where you have to play by the rules if you want to distribute software on it. The whole package. Not another App Store on iOS. I do not want that.


Ah ok. Well then Android is the only thing that'll satisfy that criteria. It is going to be _impossible_ for anything else to compete with iOS/Android because of the app ecosystem catch-22. Apps area the primary criteria that consumers base their purchase on, anything else (including UX) doesn't matter.


Huh. I believe you about the app thing—I assume there’s been a study or something—but I’m surprised. All the non-tech people in my life seem to choose their devices on two criteria: 1) price, 2) UX/familiarity. Mostly the former. If there’s a 3rd one it’s fashion.


> devices on two criteria: 1) price, 2) UX/familiarity

Interesting. Won't you agree that before 1 and 2 there is an implied 0 - must be Android or iOS (so that it can run Uber, Amazon etc)?

EDIT: maybe you misunderstood when I said "anything else doesn't matter". What I mean by that is that if $device cannot run "common" apps then it is a no-go. However, if it can then people look at 1 and 2 for sure, you're right there.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: