[izacus]

Your thinking is kinda bizarre - why do you demand accountability from the store, not the author/creator of the malware app?

For other products the accountability is always on the manufacturer/creator of the product - why, in software, do you all demand that big tech censors and polices what you're allowed to consume instead of actually punishing the wrongdoers who created malicious and dangerous software? Why can they just get away with zero accountability and you don't even spare a millisecond of thought?

[lnxg33k1]

Well, for one thing it's because I am forced to keep the play store on my phone without being able to uninstall it, along with Google play services, and also they are vetting all apps that gets to the google play store, and also the fact that they contiously bust balls justifying the existence of their ecosystem to safety and security of devices, are they allowed to have it both ways? So we need to keep them because of safety but like not really safety? More like safety of income stream for their shareholders?

[ectopod]

In the UK, consumer product liability is with the vendor. They will usually recover the costs from the manufacturer, giving them an incentive to deal with reputable companies. As a consumer I don't have to care about the vendor's suppliers.

Why should software be different?

[judge2020]

Because it's a different relationship model? With a regular product the thing the consumer interacts with never changes. With software the user is able to make it do wildly different things, stuff neither the manufacturer (Samsung, HTC, etc) nor the software vendor (Google) could envision, including running exploits in the software to do things the user didn't even intent.

[nuclearnice1]

You raise some good questions about the locus of liability and responsibility.

I’d encourage you to do it without insulting the other participants on HN.

Spare a millisecond of thought for how your tone shapes the culture here.

[petre]

They charge 15-30% of the revenue so they should also be responsible. If they had offered a free service then no.

[etchalon]

All stores charge a markup.

[withinboredom]

No they don’t. Physical stores pay volume rates to the manufacturers. They own the inventory and resell it at a markup or a loss. The app stores do something totally different. They allow “manufacturers” to list the item directly to the consumer and charge 30% in money transmission (legal term) fees. They are basically offering the same service (and licenses) as Western Union (or stripe connect), just on a larger scale and more integrated.

Whether they are actually legally set up that way (or not) I don’t know. I did go down this rabbit hole 10-15 years ago to do something similar with a lawyer.

What could be interesting is if some states/countries have limits on the fees a money transmitter can charge and an app company sued for them operating illegally.

[judge2020]

From a consumer POV it's the same as physical stores, regardless of how they acquire the product. Walmart has an average 32% markup and Target 46%[0]. Is target now liable for anything they vend to you that does something malicious?

0: https://www.retailcustomerexperience.com/news/investor-blog-... (the original marketwatch article is unavailable).

[dragonwriter]

> Is target now liable for anything they vend to you that does something malicious?

Yes, or even just defective. Chain of commerce product liability is well established.

[lnxg33k1]

there are no more half-seasons