Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by BenTheElder 2009 days ago
Microsoft could block dodgy kernel drivers while still allowing game stores ... These are not inherently related.

I think OP is aware that competing music apps are allowed. They're making an analogy about banning competing app stores, just because itunes is good doesn't mean we don't want competition ... the same concept applies.
1 comments
soraminazuki 2009 days ago
Dodgy kernel drivers are just one example of user hostile software.

Given the past and current track record of the advertising, entertainment, and gaming industries, would you really want to be forced to install an app store run by any of them?

If this was purely about getting something like F-Droid into iDevices or side loading for power users, it would be very beneficial for users. Apple deserves some of the negativity for not letting that happen.

However, known user hostile players trying to have a go at people's personal devices under the guise of competition is something that we as consumers should be equally wary of. Because in the end, we won't be given much choice. Monopolies are not something exclusive to Apple, and big players will use their own monopolistic power to coerce users to install their privacy invading app store.

link
BenTheElder 2009 days ago
It's a pretty excellent example precisely because the operating system typically already has controls over this behavior (installing kernel drivers..)

> However, known user hostile players trying to have a go at people's personal devices under the guise of competition is something that we as consumers should be equally wary of.

Is epic user hostile? Other than offering temporarily exclusive applications their store does not seem hostile ...

> Because in the end, we won't be given much choice. Monopolies are not something exclusive to Apple, and big players will use their own monopolistic power to coerce users to install their privacy invading app store.

Defeating hypothetical monopolistic practices by denying user choice and persisting an existing monopolistic practice sure is a take.

link
soraminazuki 2009 days ago
> Is epic user hostile?

Let's see an example of dodgy kernel drivers. How about Easy Anti-Cheat? Go to their page at https://www.easy.ac/en-us/. Guess who develops it?

> hypothetical monopolistic practices

Hypothetical monopolistic practices really? Because I vividly recall Facebook skirting App Store security policies to make users install a privacy invading VPN app, which they also used to gather data on competitors[1]. But I'm sure that's fine because people have alternatives to Facebook. Or perhaps not[2].

[1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15007454

[2]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25363366

link
BenTheElder 2009 days ago
> Let's see an example of dodgy kernel drivers. How about Easy Anti-Cheat? Go to their page at https://www.easy.ac/en-us/. Guess who develops it?

Their store does not install or require this. Specific applications require it for online play (and generally only for online play...)

Microsoft does not ban this behavior on any storefront, AFAIK. Having a single storefront would not change this.

> Hypothetical monopolistic practices really? Because I vividly Facebook skirting App Store security policies to make users install a privacy invading VPN app, which they also used to gather data on competitors[1].

Amusingly this occurred under the current iOS app restrictions, which clearly didn't prevent this.

An argument could be made for certain high-risk extension point access (such as VPN) could be limited independently of general apps, but the fact that there's a bad VPN app is a silly excuse for restricting the install of simple applications.

The app sandbox should provide plenty of protection, and if the user opts to give apps permissions, that's on their choice. I really don't think users are going to install an app store that requires the usage of a sketchy VPN app ...

If this were the case, surely it would exist already on android :-)

> But I'm sure that's fine because people have alternatives to Facebook. Or perhaps not[2].

[2]: is exactly why we don't need to leave Apple's monopoly in place to "defeat other monopolies" ... we have other tools for that. Let users (and their representatives etc.) decide.

link
soraminazuki 2009 days ago
> Their store does not install or require this.

How does this matter? You've shown doubts that epic engages in user hostile behavior. I've shown you evidence. It shows that they can't be trusted with the security and privacy of their customer's devices.

> Amusingly this occurred under the current iOS app restrictions, which clearly didn't prevent this.

Amusingly the app wouldn't have been pulled if it was Facebook running the App Store. It likely wouldn't have made the headlines either because it would be common practice. This is the same Facebook, along with Google, that abused enterprise certificates to skirt the app review process itself[1].

> The app sandbox should provide plenty of protection, and if the user opts to give apps permissions, that's on their choice.

You'd be amazed at the lengths some users went through to install Google and Facebook's sketchy "research" app[1].

But to get back to the point, all I'm saying boils down to two things:

- Apple should enable FOSS communities to run an app store and also make it easy for power users to side load apps

- Consumers should be extremely cautious of big players demanding more access to their personal devices

Is this such a silly position to take?

[1]: https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2019/02/google-screenwise-unwi...

link