Modi government to set up app store alternative to Google Play, Apple App Store(deccanherald.com)
deccanherald.com
Modi government to set up app store alternative to Google Play, Apple App Store
https://www.deccanherald.com/specials/aatmanirbhar-bharat-modi-govt-to-set-up-app-store-alternative-to-google-play-apple-app-store-895755.html?&cf=1
367 comments
> This is going to be a big mess. PayTM as a company isn’t known for respecting user privacy.
Controversial opinion here, but this is part of the reason I like that Apple makes (practically) all purchases run through them. They don’t sell my information, and they have an incentive to not change that.
Controversial opinion here, but this is part of the reason I like that Apple makes (practically) all purchases run through them. They don’t sell my information, and they have an incentive to not change that.
Yeah, but apple devices are affordable for 0.1% of Indians.
Also, Android is not to be blamed here. The openness is why privacy-minded people can use F-Droid.
Also, Android is not to be blamed here. The openness is why privacy-minded people can use F-Droid.
As someone in Kenya pointed out to me once, I asked someone (at Safaricom, their biggest tech company) why Kenyans seemed to prefer Android. He laughed and said: We don't prefer Android, it's what we can afford. I suppose coming from my first world bubble of friends of family it's reality check.
I've spent a lot of time in Tanzania and Kenya and when someone makes some money, the first thing they buy is an iPhone.
Fair enough. But my comment was directed more just in general due to Epic v. Apple.
On the flip side, they become the central honey pot for every apple user ever. Most of whom sit generally further along the wealthy/important person scale. Incredibly high incentives there for exploit. The high stakes should translate to proportionate attention? One can only hope.
What exactly is the cost of having my store activity sold to someone ?
30% cut is a very real one
30% cut is a very real one
It's not about selling your store activity. The apps on these stores do not comply with basic guideline like having a privacy policy, not forcing users to give access to all permissions, etc.
So basically just like the internet and PCs - no guarantees given ? I don't have a problem with this and I don't really see the value add for the 30% cut.
You may be smart and wise and know how to avoid dodgy apps, but can you trust everyone you want to have a private chat online with to not unwittingly install a screen recorder? And differently from PCs, can you trust everyone you chat with in real life to not unwittingly install an app that turns on the microphone and/or camera?
Don’t get me wrong — I want there to be 3rd party app stores, even if only because of the sexual Puritanism that Apple displays. That don’t mean there aren’t valid reasons to be extremely skepticism about any attempts to do so.
Don’t get me wrong — I want there to be 3rd party app stores, even if only because of the sexual Puritanism that Apple displays. That don’t mean there aren’t valid reasons to be extremely skepticism about any attempts to do so.
I think it's reasonable for Apple to make it difficult for shady third-parties to get you to install their malware-ridden app store, but I don't agree that the only way to keep users safe is to disallow any third-party app installs entirely.
Apple just currently has little incentive to do the former, because a) it's more difficult, b) they have a financial benefit to keeping everyone in their own app store.
Given that, it's naive to think that Apple's main motivation here is to protect users. Sure, that's a part of it (maybe even a big part!), but they could protect their users in other ways, but those other ways would likely hurt their bottom line.
And I think that is why people cry anti-trust all the time when it comes to this: in a perfect world where no one was motivated by profit (and consumer lock-in), we can imagine that Apple would find a way to open up the platform a bit more.
Apple just currently has little incentive to do the former, because a) it's more difficult, b) they have a financial benefit to keeping everyone in their own app store.
Given that, it's naive to think that Apple's main motivation here is to protect users. Sure, that's a part of it (maybe even a big part!), but they could protect their users in other ways, but those other ways would likely hurt their bottom line.
And I think that is why people cry anti-trust all the time when it comes to this: in a perfect world where no one was motivated by profit (and consumer lock-in), we can imagine that Apple would find a way to open up the platform a bit more.
> I don't agree that the only way to keep users safe is to disallow any third-party app installs entirely.
I’m not saying that, I’m saying “be careful”.
I’m not saying that, I’m saying “be careful”.
So just don't install them. You can make these decisions yourself, you don't need Apple to make them for you.
I think you are underestimating the Indian govt's determination to force anything on citizens in the name of patriotism.
If this store is actually true, a law will definitely be passed to make sure this app is preinstalled with root access for updates.
If this store is actually true, a law will definitely be passed to make sure this app is preinstalled with root access for updates.
This has nothing to do with Apple, specifically, though. This is an argument for citizens to get more involved in their government process, and to avoid being suckered by government fear-mongering that results in citizen's accepting ridiculous intrusions into their lives.
Apple deciding to allow or not allow third-party app stores is irrelevant in the face of a government that has decided to pass a law that requires a particular app to be on all phones. If that law is passed, that app will end up on phones, regardless. The only alternative is that Apple would give up a market consisting the second-most populous country in the world, which isn't likely.
Apple deciding to allow or not allow third-party app stores is irrelevant in the face of a government that has decided to pass a law that requires a particular app to be on all phones. If that law is passed, that app will end up on phones, regardless. The only alternative is that Apple would give up a market consisting the second-most populous country in the world, which isn't likely.
This thread is talking about apps with poor/no privacy policies on alternative stores.
But I want to install them. Forcing them to go trhough Apple forces them to follow certain guideline. I like the fact that there is no alternative for those who do not want to follow those guidelines.
One of the biggest reasons why people fucking loved the iPhone to begin with was that Apple made the decision to not let AT&T or anyone else bundle any bloatware with it.
The problem is transparency — nobody has perfect information about what apps do. People on HN will be better informed than most, but do you think your mom or dad will know not to install certain apps that might be widely known (except to them) to be predatory? What about malicious apps that, say, steal credit card information?
Yeah, they know not to install random crap, they're not dummies.
That is a threat to those not subject to US law.
It is more of a threat to those that are.
> but this is part of the reason I like that Apple makes (practically) all purchases run through them.
I vehemently disagree - in the name of "protecting privacy" Apple has been fooling users to believe that only Apple can be trusted with user data, and the biggest lie they sell is that they don't do anything with your data, unlike other corporates. From crippling Safari by allowing full cookies by default, and claiming to block trackers and browser fingerprinting (which a Google study itself has busted), to collecting user data in "anonymised" form Apple has been disingenuously mining its user's data with users given no choice.
I vehemently disagree - in the name of "protecting privacy" Apple has been fooling users to believe that only Apple can be trusted with user data, and the biggest lie they sell is that they don't do anything with your data, unlike other corporates. From crippling Safari by allowing full cookies by default, and claiming to block trackers and browser fingerprinting (which a Google study itself has busted), to collecting user data in "anonymised" form Apple has been disingenuously mining its user's data with users given no choice.
Very strange to call Apple out as being a liar and can't be trusted with user data because of Safari's cookie and tracker policy.
Because of all the browsers they have led the way in reducing the ability for advertisers to track you.
Because of all the browsers they have led the way in reducing the ability for advertisers to track you.
> Because of all the browsers they have led the way in reducing the ability for advertisers to track you.
Certainly when compared to Chrome, but Firefox? Brave? Tor Browser? No. Which is why it's so unfortunate that you can't get a real third party browser for iOS.
Certainly when compared to Chrome, but Firefox? Brave? Tor Browser? No. Which is why it's so unfortunate that you can't get a real third party browser for iOS.
Tor Browser is terrible for security, and I don’t think Firefox started doing tracking prevention before Safari did. I may have the timeline wrong though. As for Brave, well. They have a different business model but I’m not entirely clear on what their technological innovation is?
> Tor Browser is terrible for security
[citation needed]
The exit node can't do anything your ISP can't. Meanwhile you can choose the exit node, which you often can't for your ISP, which means you can choose one operated by someone you trust.
And even if you don't, what are they going to do to a TLS connection?
> and I don’t think Firefox started doing tracking prevention before Safari did
Tor Browser is based on Firefox, so the anti-fingerprinting work they do regularly gets merged back into Firefox proper. Moreover, Firefox has had some of the best anti-tracking addons since forever, but you can only have those if you actually have Firefox.
But Tor Browser is still more stringent about certain things, e.g. they always reset the window to a standard size when you open it so the page can't track you based on that, which Firefox itself doesn't do because it's kind of annoying to the user. Which is another reason why there is benefit in having multiple browsers -- they each have different trade offs.
> They have a different business model but I’m not entirely clear on what their technological innovation is?
They do a lot of good work on ad blocking, and are willing to be a lot more aggressive about it, since it aligns directly with their incentives.
[citation needed]
The exit node can't do anything your ISP can't. Meanwhile you can choose the exit node, which you often can't for your ISP, which means you can choose one operated by someone you trust.
And even if you don't, what are they going to do to a TLS connection?
> and I don’t think Firefox started doing tracking prevention before Safari did
Tor Browser is based on Firefox, so the anti-fingerprinting work they do regularly gets merged back into Firefox proper. Moreover, Firefox has had some of the best anti-tracking addons since forever, but you can only have those if you actually have Firefox.
But Tor Browser is still more stringent about certain things, e.g. they always reset the window to a standard size when you open it so the page can't track you based on that, which Firefox itself doesn't do because it's kind of annoying to the user. Which is another reason why there is benefit in having multiple browsers -- they each have different trade offs.
> They have a different business model but I’m not entirely clear on what their technological innovation is?
They do a lot of good work on ad blocking, and are willing to be a lot more aggressive about it, since it aligns directly with their incentives.
>And even if you don't, what are they going to do to a TLS connection?
You misunderstand me. Tor Browser is based on Firefox ESR, which means it lags with security updates: https://medium.com/@thegrugq/tor-and-its-discontents-ef51648...
Tor itself is not what I was referring to, although it has its problems as well, mainly that it's extremely identifiable. Tor is not a good idea for most people to use full-time.
The rest of this doesn't really answer my question about Safari vs Firefox, and I'm pretty much uninterested in appeals to Tor Browser as something that should be universally adopted.
You misunderstand me. Tor Browser is based on Firefox ESR, which means it lags with security updates: https://medium.com/@thegrugq/tor-and-its-discontents-ef51648...
Tor itself is not what I was referring to, although it has its problems as well, mainly that it's extremely identifiable. Tor is not a good idea for most people to use full-time.
The rest of this doesn't really answer my question about Safari vs Firefox, and I'm pretty much uninterested in appeals to Tor Browser as something that should be universally adopted.
> You misunderstand me. Tor Browser is based on Firefox ESR, which means it lags with security updates: https://medium.com/@thegrugq/tor-and-its-discontents-ef51648...
The main point your link is making is that Tor Browser is purposely a monoculture to avoid fingerprinting and monocultures are bad for security because it gives attackers somewhere to concentrate their attacks. You're using this to argue in support of Safari as a monoculture on iOS?
Meanwhile, Tor Browser is based on Firefox ESR, but that doesn't mean they can't backport patches, which they regularly do.
> Tor itself is not what I was referring to, although it has its problems as well, mainly that it's extremely identifiable. Tor is not a good idea for most people to use full-time.
It's extremely identifiable as Tor, but that's exactly why most people should use it more of the time, so that it isn't regarded as suspicious when somebody has a more serious reason to.
The main point your link is making is that Tor Browser is purposely a monoculture to avoid fingerprinting and monocultures are bad for security because it gives attackers somewhere to concentrate their attacks. You're using this to argue in support of Safari as a monoculture on iOS?
Meanwhile, Tor Browser is based on Firefox ESR, but that doesn't mean they can't backport patches, which they regularly do.
> Tor itself is not what I was referring to, although it has its problems as well, mainly that it's extremely identifiable. Tor is not a good idea for most people to use full-time.
It's extremely identifiable as Tor, but that's exactly why most people should use it more of the time, so that it isn't regarded as suspicious when somebody has a more serious reason to.
You didn’t read the whole thing if that’s what you drew from it. Safari on iOS is used by everyone with an iPhone, Tor Browser is used (typically) by people with something to hide or a lot at stake, which makes it a singularly desirable target that is especially dangerous because it doesn’t receive security patches at the same speed as mainline Firefox. The monoculture is only part of the problem, the bigger part is using a browser with an inferior security model and leaving it hopelessly out of date. Using Tor with an up to date version of Chrome is much less hazardous to your health, and I really recommend that approach if you want to use Tor.
> It's extremely identifiable as Tor, but that's exactly why most people should use it more of the time, so that it isn't regarded as suspicious when somebody has a more serious reason to.
No. That’s just not going to happen, for a number of reasons, and hoping it does happen is not a strategy for helping the significant number of people who are already using it because they do have a serious reason to, and are consequently at risk because of how vulnerable their browser is.
> It's extremely identifiable as Tor, but that's exactly why most people should use it more of the time, so that it isn't regarded as suspicious when somebody has a more serious reason to.
No. That’s just not going to happen, for a number of reasons, and hoping it does happen is not a strategy for helping the significant number of people who are already using it because they do have a serious reason to, and are consequently at risk because of how vulnerable their browser is.
How is tor extremely identifiable? How does the dark net manage to stay up if it’s identifiable?
Not in the sense that you can de-anonymize people easily (though easier than you might think) but that it makes your traffic identifiable as Tor traffic, which can be worse than the anonymity benefits. VPNs (setup with WireGuard, possibly via Algo, though never a commercial provider) are a better choice for most users.
Can Apple be trusted tho?
"Apple dropped plan for encrypting backups after FBI complained"
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22106536
"Apple dropped plan for encrypting backups after FBI complained"
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22106536
Do you have evidence of anything being mined?
Apple’s careers page has job listings indicating they are using an industry standard data warehousing, ETL, star schema etc. user analytics stack for something. I don’t think any specific claims they made about privacy are false (they have many different products and services), but they are definitely doing some kind of data mining.
Apple does product analytics.
Whenever you install/update iOS/OSX they specifically ask you if you want to send anonymised data to Apple which details how you are using the OS. They couldn't be more upfront and clear about it.
And when I was working at Apple years ago they were using a very old and clunky SAP system for all of their customer purchases. It would be pretty common sense to ETL this to a data lake in order to do reports e.g. which apps are popular.
Whenever you install/update iOS/OSX they specifically ask you if you want to send anonymised data to Apple which details how you are using the OS. They couldn't be more upfront and clear about it.
And when I was working at Apple years ago they were using a very old and clunky SAP system for all of their customer purchases. It would be pretty common sense to ETL this to a data lake in order to do reports e.g. which apps are popular.
> in the name of "protecting privacy" Apple has been fooling users to believe that only Apple can be trusted with user data
Even if Apple can’t be trusted with my data, I’d rather that it lie with them.
> and the biggest lie
According to?
> From crippling Safari by allowing full cookies by default and claiming to block trackers and browser fingerprinting
It works, even if it’s not perfect and it’s certainly better than nothing or Chrome’s defaults.
> a Google study
/cough
Even if Apple can’t be trusted with my data, I’d rather that it lie with them.
> and the biggest lie
According to?
> From crippling Safari by allowing full cookies by default and claiming to block trackers and browser fingerprinting
It works, even if it’s not perfect and it’s certainly better than nothing or Chrome’s defaults.
> a Google study
/cough
> Even if Apple can’t be trusted with my data, I’d rather that it lie with them.
May I ask why? If hypothetically Apple isn't trustworthy with your data, why would you prefer them over any other company with a hypothetically similarly-bad level of trustworthiness?
May I ask why? If hypothetically Apple isn't trustworthy with your data, why would you prefer them over any other company with a hypothetically similarly-bad level of trustworthiness?
Have you even seen what happens when X is reported for any other company versus when the same X is reported for Apple?
This sounds like privacy fear mongering What part of Apple’s business model would make them monetize user data through ads?
> What part of Apple’s business model would make them monetize user data through ads?
The same part that has Microsoft doing it -- they can make additional money from it regardless of whether the user is paying them already.
Which isn't to say that Apple is actually doing it, but if they're not, that's not why.
The same part that has Microsoft doing it -- they can make additional money from it regardless of whether the user is paying them already.
Which isn't to say that Apple is actually doing it, but if they're not, that's not why.
That's not an argument for Apple forcing everyone else out. You can still choose to just interface with Apple services, even if other app stores or payment services are available.
As this article shows, that may not be possible in all cases
> Controversial opinion here, but this is part of the reason I like that Apple makes (practically) all purchases run through them. They don’t sell my information, and they have an incentive to not change that.
I'm sympathetic to this, because I do think it's great that Apple values user privacy. But I think it's unfortunate that the perception is that the only way to get that privacy is to use a heavily locked-down device that the user doesn't actually have control over, and that the entity protecting your privacy has to impose strict restrictions on what you can do with that device.
Obviously Google will never be a good example of a company that protects user data and user privacy; their entire business model depends on the opposite. But that doesn't mean that the concept of a company selling a premium product that protects user privacy by default couldn't also allow users to do whatever they want with their device.
I'm sympathetic to this, because I do think it's great that Apple values user privacy. But I think it's unfortunate that the perception is that the only way to get that privacy is to use a heavily locked-down device that the user doesn't actually have control over, and that the entity protecting your privacy has to impose strict restrictions on what you can do with that device.
Obviously Google will never be a good example of a company that protects user data and user privacy; their entire business model depends on the opposite. But that doesn't mean that the concept of a company selling a premium product that protects user privacy by default couldn't also allow users to do whatever they want with their device.
The problem with open devices is that at some point someone is going to undercut you by providing a "free" product and then we're back in square one of trading user data - and in the process you created a fragmentation hell.
Nah, give me expensive, locked down products (as long as they work). Clearly its something the consumers want, hence Apple's monstrous pile of cash.
Nah, give me expensive, locked down products (as long as they work). Clearly its something the consumers want, hence Apple's monstrous pile of cash.
> The problem with open devices is that at some point someone is going to undercut you by providing a "free" product and then we're back in square one of trading user data
Except that the stores have to compete with each other, so who is going to choose the one with all the apps that trade user data? Certainly not the users who are allegedly patronizing Apple only because they don't want that.
> and in the process you created a fragmentation hell.
I don't understand what this is supposed to be about. Is it "fragmentation" that you can get books from a book store and a library and online and a thrift store? How is that a problem? If the books in the thrift store are torn up and written in, why not just buy from a different one?
> Clearly its something the consumers want, hence Apple's monstrous pile of cash.
People keep saying this, but the fact that you have no alternatives to Apple's store on their devices is precisely why you can't prove it that way. We have no data on how many people are buying their devices for the store vs. despite the store and for the hardware or the OS or iMessage etc.
Except that the stores have to compete with each other, so who is going to choose the one with all the apps that trade user data? Certainly not the users who are allegedly patronizing Apple only because they don't want that.
> and in the process you created a fragmentation hell.
I don't understand what this is supposed to be about. Is it "fragmentation" that you can get books from a book store and a library and online and a thrift store? How is that a problem? If the books in the thrift store are torn up and written in, why not just buy from a different one?
> Clearly its something the consumers want, hence Apple's monstrous pile of cash.
People keep saying this, but the fact that you have no alternatives to Apple's store on their devices is precisely why you can't prove it that way. We have no data on how many people are buying their devices for the store vs. despite the store and for the hardware or the OS or iMessage etc.
“Except that the stores have to compete with each other, so who is going to choose the one with all the apps that trade user data? Certainly not the users who are allegedly patronizing Apple only because they don't want that.”
They will when many of the key apps are only available through the privacy agnostic stores.
They will when many of the key apps are only available through the privacy agnostic stores.
How are the "key apps" going to move there when the users refuse to install apps from there? If it was so easy, why don't all the "key apps" do this already and stop using Apple's store so that everybody has to switch to Android?
Obvious reasons:
Key apps have zero incentive to try to get people to switch to Android. Even if there was, there is a prisoners dilemma - it would only work if many of them switched at once.
This is absolutely nothing like the situation with multiple app stores, where not all apps have to switch at once.
Most users do not refuse to use Facebook. New people take up smoking daily. The idea that users would ‘refuse’ to buy apps from a store run by Facebook (or worse) is an idealistic fantasy.
As for why apps would switch to other stores? Paid exclusives, just as with every other media type - TV, Movies, Books, Podcasts.
People who have hits get paid a huge premium for exclusives, because it forces customers to use the new store or platform.
Epic is already buying exclusives. Amazon and Facebook, and TenCent et all would obviously do so too.
The only choice for users would be to install all of the stores.
The only choice for developers will be to deal with all of the stores.
Apps will be the new TV. Costs will rise. Almost everything will be funded by the store networks.
The long tail of small developers will be absolutely decimated.
Users won’t care and will barely remember the difference. The ten years of Apple’s store will be a quaint memory from the early days.
Key apps have zero incentive to try to get people to switch to Android. Even if there was, there is a prisoners dilemma - it would only work if many of them switched at once.
This is absolutely nothing like the situation with multiple app stores, where not all apps have to switch at once.
Most users do not refuse to use Facebook. New people take up smoking daily. The idea that users would ‘refuse’ to buy apps from a store run by Facebook (or worse) is an idealistic fantasy.
As for why apps would switch to other stores? Paid exclusives, just as with every other media type - TV, Movies, Books, Podcasts.
People who have hits get paid a huge premium for exclusives, because it forces customers to use the new store or platform.
Epic is already buying exclusives. Amazon and Facebook, and TenCent et all would obviously do so too.
The only choice for users would be to install all of the stores.
The only choice for developers will be to deal with all of the stores.
Apps will be the new TV. Costs will rise. Almost everything will be funded by the store networks.
The long tail of small developers will be absolutely decimated.
Users won’t care and will barely remember the difference. The ten years of Apple’s store will be a quaint memory from the early days.
> Key apps have zero incentive to try to get people to switch to Android.
Google Play is less stringent about privacy than Apple (right?), so the same incentives would exist.
> Even if there was, there is a prisoners dilemma - it would only work if many of them switched at once.
Which would still be true with alternate stores. Nobody wants to be the first to switch to a shady store that customers don't trust and abandon the one they do.
> Most users do not refuse to use Facebook. New people take up smoking daily. The idea that users would ‘refuse’ to buy apps from a store run by Facebook (or worse) is an idealistic fantasy.
Then what's stopping them all from switching to Android right now? Why haven't they done it already?
> As for why apps would switch to other stores? Paid exclusives, just as with every other media type - TV, Movies, Books, Podcasts.
That only gets the user to use the store to install one app which they're already familiar with. It doesn't require anyone to trust the same store for apps they're not familiar with. For that to happen the store would still have to establish a reputation for trustworthiness, which would require it to not carry shady apps.
> The only choice for users would be to install all of the stores.
> The only choice for developers will be to deal with all of the stores.
These are obviously contradictory positions. If all the apps were in all the stores, a user would only need to use one of them (presumably the one they like the best). If all the users had all the stores, a developer would only need to be in one of them (presumably the one users like the best, to maximize competitive advantage over alternative apps).
The stores still have to compete with each other for users.
None of your conclusions make any sense. Competition reduces costs because all else equal people will choose the alternative which takes a smaller profit margin and passes that money to the user or the app developer, which either makes apps less expensive for the same amount of developer revenue, or increases developer revenue at the same price to the user which leads to more and better apps.
Monopolies are abusive and inefficient, so removing them makes things better. It's why we have antitrust laws.
Google Play is less stringent about privacy than Apple (right?), so the same incentives would exist.
> Even if there was, there is a prisoners dilemma - it would only work if many of them switched at once.
Which would still be true with alternate stores. Nobody wants to be the first to switch to a shady store that customers don't trust and abandon the one they do.
> Most users do not refuse to use Facebook. New people take up smoking daily. The idea that users would ‘refuse’ to buy apps from a store run by Facebook (or worse) is an idealistic fantasy.
Then what's stopping them all from switching to Android right now? Why haven't they done it already?
> As for why apps would switch to other stores? Paid exclusives, just as with every other media type - TV, Movies, Books, Podcasts.
That only gets the user to use the store to install one app which they're already familiar with. It doesn't require anyone to trust the same store for apps they're not familiar with. For that to happen the store would still have to establish a reputation for trustworthiness, which would require it to not carry shady apps.
> The only choice for users would be to install all of the stores.
> The only choice for developers will be to deal with all of the stores.
These are obviously contradictory positions. If all the apps were in all the stores, a user would only need to use one of them (presumably the one they like the best). If all the users had all the stores, a developer would only need to be in one of them (presumably the one users like the best, to maximize competitive advantage over alternative apps).
The stores still have to compete with each other for users.
None of your conclusions make any sense. Competition reduces costs because all else equal people will choose the alternative which takes a smaller profit margin and passes that money to the user or the app developer, which either makes apps less expensive for the same amount of developer revenue, or increases developer revenue at the same price to the user which leads to more and better apps.
Monopolies are abusive and inefficient, so removing them makes things better. It's why we have antitrust laws.
I’ve already explained why the incentives don’t exist in the Android store.
Do you know what a paid exclusive is?
Do you know what a paid exclusive is?
Paid exclusives cause other stores to be more popular. They don't cause other stores to be less restrictive, if that's what the users want, because having an exclusive on a garbage app the users don't want would fail to get anyone to use the store, and getting users to buy anything other than the non-garbage exclusive app from the other store is only done by getting the users to trust the store, by not having it be full of garbage apps.
Do you trust Facebook?
I don't see where in the article they say that PayTM would be processing payments. From what I read, it just says that PayTM was in violation of store policy. I think the parent poster was implying that PayTM shouldn't be hosted on the app store because their violations needed to fixed.
Apple also makes it easy to unsubscribe to any app's subscription. You don't have to call some number and wait on hold.
Thought experiment. Imagine that MasterCard charged 30% of every purchase at the groceriy store, restaurant, pay gas or shop online.
Or... what if Windows charged software developers 30% of sales of any product. And Microsoft wouldn't let you give away free software, in the name of "privacy" whatever that means for Apple.
Or... what if Windows charged software developers 30% of sales of any product. And Microsoft wouldn't let you give away free software, in the name of "privacy" whatever that means for Apple.
It would be messy for sure but there is somewhat precedence for it. WeChat operates its own AppStores and is subservient to the CCP. 'Running' your own AppStore is forbidden in the iOS terms of service but when you have the might of a billion people, some rules are okay to be broken.
WeChat mini-programs don't actually run as native code on the phone though. They're much more like web apps running on the WeChat back end, with WecChat acting as a browser to access them. Roblox does a similar thing, with interactive games from third parties running on the Roblox servers in the virtual environment. A third party app store where you install native code apps on the phone, directly accessing phone OS services and consuming local resources is a completely different thing, right?
The same thing could be said of game streaming apps like Stadia (all the game code is running remotely) but are forbidden in the App Store. It's hard to take Apple seriously when they do shit like this.
You are supposed to have Apple approve all these games/apps before launch. But of course that kind of restriction does not apply to an app that basically is a requirement for a phone in a desired market like China.
They aren’t forbidden anymore. [1]
It is weird they’re making it so that each game you’ve bought needs a separate App Store entry, especially since the local code is all the same and a thin shim. That being said, the same rules are in effect for Apple’s own game platform so maybe there’s a specific reason (eg uniform experience for any app, they can properly promote individual titles in the App Store instead of allowing walled gardens within its platform that it can’t see into.
https://www.engadget.com/apple-app-store-google-stadia-xclou...
It is weird they’re making it so that each game you’ve bought needs a separate App Store entry, especially since the local code is all the same and a thin shim. That being said, the same rules are in effect for Apple’s own game platform so maybe there’s a specific reason (eg uniform experience for any app, they can properly promote individual titles in the App Store instead of allowing walled gardens within its platform that it can’t see into.
https://www.engadget.com/apple-app-store-google-stadia-xclou...
I think it’s so app-level device-management policy features can be applied to the content of these services at a per-game granular level.
Having each game as its own app means each game gets its own app-store age rating; its own star-rating, reviews, and install metrics; its own parental-control settings (e.g. screen time limits); its own corporate MDM blacklist-ability; and the ability for Apple to block that individual game from being installable, either temporarily because it’s breaking App Store policy, or permanently within some country whose regime doesn’t allow it.
Also, Apple haven’t mentioned exactly how they’re implementing this just yet, but I would guess that the game streaming services are going to be required to have each client version paired 1:1 with a particular release of the streamed game, such that you must update the app to connect to an updated streaming backend. This would put Apple’s App Store review team back in the critical path for approving changes in app content.
Having each game as its own app means each game gets its own app-store age rating; its own star-rating, reviews, and install metrics; its own parental-control settings (e.g. screen time limits); its own corporate MDM blacklist-ability; and the ability for Apple to block that individual game from being installable, either temporarily because it’s breaking App Store policy, or permanently within some country whose regime doesn’t allow it.
Also, Apple haven’t mentioned exactly how they’re implementing this just yet, but I would guess that the game streaming services are going to be required to have each client version paired 1:1 with a particular release of the streamed game, such that you must update the app to connect to an updated streaming backend. This would put Apple’s App Store review team back in the critical path for approving changes in app content.
Sure. It’s still a little hard to justify when you have video streaming services (which at a technical level is all that Stadia is as well). While Netflix is largely non-interactive content, they certainly do have interactive pieces (eg the experiment they did with a choose your adventure Kimmy Schmidt).
The point is, WeChat doesn't have to offer separate apps for their mini programs in the AppStore. But Facebook was blocked from doing a similar thing for games.
I am sure Roblox is not having each of their mini games as a separate entry in App Store. I guess as long as Apple is getting 30% cut from your subscription fee.
Are Roblox mini games purchased individually?
With Stadia/xplay you have your subscription which covers server costs but then you also buy each game individually. That could be the difference here.
With Stadia/xplay you have your subscription which covers server costs but then you also buy each game individually. That could be the difference here.
At least we get a choice whether we want our privacy violated by CCP, silicon-NSA complex, or Indian aristocracy
What choice? All of these are mandatory.
Yeah, I'm not sure a lot of people see what's about to happen here.
Many here seem to believe this will open up opportunities for them to start app stores. It won't. It will open up opportunities for governments around the world to do what they've been contemplating for a long time. Part of which is to specifically preclude you from opening an app store in their jurisdiction.
Many here seem to believe this will open up opportunities for them to start app stores. It won't. It will open up opportunities for governments around the world to do what they've been contemplating for a long time. Part of which is to specifically preclude you from opening an app store in their jurisdiction.
Right - we currently have a quasi duopoly which frankly won’t last a decade if people are willing to compete with it. Both companies are showing signs of ossification.
If governments get involved, we’ll have a government monopoly and government regulated software sales forever.
If governments get involved, we’ll have a government monopoly and government regulated software sales forever.
That obviously depends on which governments and what the governments do.
A US antitrust ruling that Apple can't constrain the user from installing apps from competing stores while Apple is still selling the device and not loading it up with crapware by default is very different than a requirement from China or India to install the government's store as root on everybody's phone from the factory.
The difference being that you choose which stores you trust instead of having them imposed on you against your will.
A US antitrust ruling that Apple can't constrain the user from installing apps from competing stores while Apple is still selling the device and not loading it up with crapware by default is very different than a requirement from China or India to install the government's store as root on everybody's phone from the factory.
The difference being that you choose which stores you trust instead of having them imposed on you against your will.
Actually there is no difference.
As soon as Apple is constrained, everyone else who can impose requirements will do so.
This idea about choosing which stores you trust, is a complete fantasy. Even in the most free market of countries, you’ll end up with a small set of corporations you don’t trust as he only viable stores.
As soon as Apple is constrained, everyone else who can impose requirements will do so.
This idea about choosing which stores you trust, is a complete fantasy. Even in the most free market of countries, you’ll end up with a small set of corporations you don’t trust as he only viable stores.
> As soon as Apple is constrained, everyone else who can impose requirements will do so.
But that's precisely where the distinction matters -- there can be a hundred stores with onerous requirements, but if there is nothing requiring you to use any of them, you don't.
It's obviously a problem if you're required to use a specific store instead of the one you want to, but that's the problem today -- it's the thing requiring them to allow anyone to open a store would address. If Apple is the only store on your device and the government pressures Apple to reject an app you want, you can't get it. If anyone can open a store and the government pressures Apple to reject an app you want, you get it from a store that government can't pressure, or side load it.
Allowing someone to use another store and forcing them to use it are independent actions.
> Even in the most free market of countries, you’ll end up with a small set of corporations you don’t trust as he only viable stores.
How does that make any logical sense? We already see on Android that there exist stores operated by trustworthy entities, like F-Droid. Opening up to other stores wouldn't cause Apple's store to cease to exist, if you trust them. And if you don't then having alternatives available still wouldn't be any worse than the status quo.
But that's precisely where the distinction matters -- there can be a hundred stores with onerous requirements, but if there is nothing requiring you to use any of them, you don't.
It's obviously a problem if you're required to use a specific store instead of the one you want to, but that's the problem today -- it's the thing requiring them to allow anyone to open a store would address. If Apple is the only store on your device and the government pressures Apple to reject an app you want, you can't get it. If anyone can open a store and the government pressures Apple to reject an app you want, you get it from a store that government can't pressure, or side load it.
Allowing someone to use another store and forcing them to use it are independent actions.
> Even in the most free market of countries, you’ll end up with a small set of corporations you don’t trust as he only viable stores.
How does that make any logical sense? We already see on Android that there exist stores operated by trustworthy entities, like F-Droid. Opening up to other stores wouldn't cause Apple's store to cease to exist, if you trust them. And if you don't then having alternatives available still wouldn't be any worse than the status quo.
Do you trust Facebook?
Of course not, which is why I don't install their app and wouldn't use their store.
Neither do I but, there are 2.7 Billion monthly active users who trust them enough to use the service.
Do you think some of them would end up using the store?
Do you think some of them would end up using the store?
Would a non-zero number of people use the store? Of course. But voluntarily, and with the realistic option not to, which isn't tied to their choice of hardware or operating system.
And enough people wouldn't that Facebook would still feel a lot of pressure to have their app in Apple's store under Apple's rules, or at least some store and some set of rules that the users actually trust.
And enough people wouldn't that Facebook would still feel a lot of pressure to have their app in Apple's store under Apple's rules, or at least some store and some set of rules that the users actually trust.
Buy an Android One phone that provides updates, install F-Droid, use the open source maps/etc.. with minimal play store use and disable every thing else you don't need.
There clearly are choices, though at varying levels of convenience.
There clearly are choices, though at varying levels of convenience.
It seems really out of touch to simultaneously acknowledge the struggling poor while also demonizing a practice that allows them to be showered in free services despite their poverty. People have bigger issues than digital privacy and frankly if the American approach is so lucrative then Indian app developers will gravitate towards American practices anyway. Who knows though, maybe the EU will finally come back from their their lunch breaks and show the world an even better (in the real way) monetization model.
Modi couldn't ban alibaba let alone Google play store.
India today has no eBay equivalent or even Alibaba or Taobao equivalent, without these I don't see b2b or even exports growing much.
eBay used to be the only way to find stuff like rare metal, or niche tools and spare parts.
India today has no eBay equivalent or even Alibaba or Taobao equivalent, without these I don't see b2b or even exports growing much.
eBay used to be the only way to find stuff like rare metal, or niche tools and spare parts.
Far too many optimistic voices here and that scares me. I don't see this app store being about providing alternatives. that's just a talking point.
This app store is all about forcing every android sold in India to have a system installed govt driven app, which will report back to the govt on tons of private information about the device and owner. Information that Indian govt will be too incompetent to keep safe and given its authoritarian nature, should never have access to.
This is an authoritarian nightmare abut to happen. Modi wants India to move in the direction that China chose. And this scares me a lot.
This app store is all about forcing every android sold in India to have a system installed govt driven app, which will report back to the govt on tons of private information about the device and owner. Information that Indian govt will be too incompetent to keep safe and given its authoritarian nature, should never have access to.
This is an authoritarian nightmare abut to happen. Modi wants India to move in the direction that China chose. And this scares me a lot.
I agree with you, the worst is about to happen worldwide.
The Indians clearly want more control. The Chinese obviously are never going to relinquish any control. Even the South Americans and especially the Africans are starting to look at regionally fenced mobile and internet services as a method of both more control over social media and growing their economies. (As well as providing jobs for their youth.)
I think the saying was something like freedom dies to thunderous applause.
The Indians clearly want more control. The Chinese obviously are never going to relinquish any control. Even the South Americans and especially the Africans are starting to look at regionally fenced mobile and internet services as a method of both more control over social media and growing their economies. (As well as providing jobs for their youth.)
I think the saying was something like freedom dies to thunderous applause.
I'm not happy with governments taking such an active role. Ideally they help home-grown alternatives and push out American/Chinese corporations to give them space.
That is probably too little too late at this point though. Google, Facebook, Apple et al. have shown they will not stop until they dominate digital markets worldwide. Aggressive intervention by governments is the only way for them to wrestle back control.
At least with the "Indian Government App Store" there is no smoke and mirrors with regards to who has access to the data. Tech companies hand over whatever governments ask for anyway.
That is probably too little too late at this point though. Google, Facebook, Apple et al. have shown they will not stop until they dominate digital markets worldwide. Aggressive intervention by governments is the only way for them to wrestle back control.
At least with the "Indian Government App Store" there is no smoke and mirrors with regards to who has access to the data. Tech companies hand over whatever governments ask for anyway.
All we need is a proper way to tax these companies. It is totally okay that Google or Facebook is doing the work, the people can tax them and get a fair cut from the profit.
Yes you are right, taxing global companies effectively would help greatly. There seems to be no will (in the West at least) to do anything about it though.
Closing loopholes is a problem and it just becomes a war of attrition with accountants and lawyers. Maybe there does need to be the global coordinated effort on tax reform that is the typical excuse for why nothing is ever changed.
I can see why punitive action against foreign corporations could be seen as the easier option.
Closing loopholes is a problem and it just becomes a war of attrition with accountants and lawyers. Maybe there does need to be the global coordinated effort on tax reform that is the typical excuse for why nothing is ever changed.
I can see why punitive action against foreign corporations could be seen as the easier option.
> Closing loopholes is a problem and it just becomes a war of attrition with accountants and lawyers.
I think that's unfortunately true, but there must be a point of diminishing returns. Close enough loopholes (intentional loopholes or otherwise) and companies end up spending more money on tax lawyers than the value of the actual tax break. Even if some companies are able to use some loopholes, closing many of them still means more tax revenue for states. We don't need to get to a "perfect" state here.
I think that's unfortunately true, but there must be a point of diminishing returns. Close enough loopholes (intentional loopholes or otherwise) and companies end up spending more money on tax lawyers than the value of the actual tax break. Even if some companies are able to use some loopholes, closing many of them still means more tax revenue for states. We don't need to get to a "perfect" state here.
"All we need" == an entire restructuring of every major country's government from the ground up. Not that it would work anyways...
Fair enough. At least France is trying to push for some digital tax for internet services.
If you read the subtext of the other Epic v. Apple threads, this is the point: government is somehow going to do a better job than Apple or Google.
That or government will mandate the Libertarian Wild West on our phones where anyone can install anything from any store. Mobile operators alone will balk at that.
This is a fever dream from a new generation of publishers and developers that have to learn how this worked in the past: the market evolved, the old platforms withered or became irrelevant. Consent decrees don’t fix things, at best they add a counterweight on the scale. See: Microsoft, still making money hand over fist due to the PC monopoly that no one cares about.
That or government will mandate the Libertarian Wild West on our phones where anyone can install anything from any store. Mobile operators alone will balk at that.
This is a fever dream from a new generation of publishers and developers that have to learn how this worked in the past: the market evolved, the old platforms withered or became irrelevant. Consent decrees don’t fix things, at best they add a counterweight on the scale. See: Microsoft, still making money hand over fist due to the PC monopoly that no one cares about.
> That or government will mandate the Libertarian Wild West on our phones where anyone can install anything from any store.
It's a little disconcerting to me that you would see allowing me to install whatever software I want on a device I fully own as a "Libertarian wild west."
> Mobile operators alone will balk at that.
Why? Don't fixed-location ISPs have the same issue?
> the market evolved
I think the concern is it didn't evolve naturally.. it evolved to this configuration due to the whims of a few companies in strong monopoly positions. Believing that we have the best solution available is again, a bit disconcerting.
> due to the PC monopoly that no one cares about.
They were sued for this. The government won. Then the next administration basically vacated the actions against them. People care.
It's a little disconcerting to me that you would see allowing me to install whatever software I want on a device I fully own as a "Libertarian wild west."
> Mobile operators alone will balk at that.
Why? Don't fixed-location ISPs have the same issue?
> the market evolved
I think the concern is it didn't evolve naturally.. it evolved to this configuration due to the whims of a few companies in strong monopoly positions. Believing that we have the best solution available is again, a bit disconcerting.
> due to the PC monopoly that no one cares about.
They were sued for this. The government won. Then the next administration basically vacated the actions against them. People care.
If the device wasn’t connected to the global telephone network then you’d have a point. Mobile carriers and governments have never allowed just “anything“ installed on phones.
> I think the concern is it didn't evolve naturally.. it evolved to this configuration due to the whims of a few companies in strong monopoly positions.
What’s “natural?” Markets are not created by god, they’re created by customers. Apple didn’t build the most successful product line in history because of monopoly practices - they built it because customers wanted it. And, Apple isn’t a monopoly by any historical definition of the term. Google is one in search and have tried to parlay that into Android. Illegally? We will see.
> Believing that we have the best solution available is again, a bit disconcerting.
I don’t claim we have the best solution available, I claim that government regulation of app stores or forced disaggregation of app stores would make the current situation far worse.
Want a better situation? Build a new and better ecosystem. It wasn’t even 6 years ago that Apple and iPhone and iPad was declared dead by most pundits, about to get trammelled by Samsung and Chinese Android makers. Now we want government to turn them into a utility? These decisions and laws take decades.
> The government won. Then the next administration basically vacated the actions against them. People care.
There was a second consent decree. It arguably didn’t really matter, because the next generation was mobile.
And I’m sure some people care about Microsoft’s continued dominance of PCs, but not enough to convince a government to do anything about it.
The same likely goes with iOS and Android. I see a lot of devs/publishers complaining and not a lot of users.
> I think the concern is it didn't evolve naturally.. it evolved to this configuration due to the whims of a few companies in strong monopoly positions.
What’s “natural?” Markets are not created by god, they’re created by customers. Apple didn’t build the most successful product line in history because of monopoly practices - they built it because customers wanted it. And, Apple isn’t a monopoly by any historical definition of the term. Google is one in search and have tried to parlay that into Android. Illegally? We will see.
> Believing that we have the best solution available is again, a bit disconcerting.
I don’t claim we have the best solution available, I claim that government regulation of app stores or forced disaggregation of app stores would make the current situation far worse.
Want a better situation? Build a new and better ecosystem. It wasn’t even 6 years ago that Apple and iPhone and iPad was declared dead by most pundits, about to get trammelled by Samsung and Chinese Android makers. Now we want government to turn them into a utility? These decisions and laws take decades.
> The government won. Then the next administration basically vacated the actions against them. People care.
There was a second consent decree. It arguably didn’t really matter, because the next generation was mobile.
And I’m sure some people care about Microsoft’s continued dominance of PCs, but not enough to convince a government to do anything about it.
The same likely goes with iOS and Android. I see a lot of devs/publishers complaining and not a lot of users.
> Want a better situation? Build a new and better ecosystem.
The problem is it's chicken and egg. To get users you need apps, to get app developers you need users. To overcome that you don't just need something which is as good as the status quo, you need something so much better that people will switch to it despite the apps conundrum.
Apple got there by being first to market with a modern smartphone. Google got there by undercutting the competition on price. Neither of those are a possible path for a new competitor. They can't be first to market anymore, and they can't undercut Android on price because its price is already zero.
The usual way underdog platforms avoid this is by establishing compatibility with the competitor's apps. Sun created Java so that people would write their apps in Java, which would then run on Solaris/SPARC as well as Windows/Intel. Wine allows Windows programs to run on Linux.
But that doesn't work here either, because of the very problem the new platform would be needed to solve. Even if you created a competing platform that could run Android apps or iOS apps, it wouldn't have Google or Apple's store, which is where all the existing apps are. The user of your new platform can't go to the developer's website to get the existing app and run it on your new platform because the existing platforms don't allow apps to be distributed that way. So you have to convince all the existing developers to use your store, and avoid use of Google Play Services etc., before you have any users that would give developers the incentive to spend their time doing that.
Moreover, the incumbents are vertically integrated. If I think I can make a better OS than Apple, to capture their customers I don't just need to convert all their developers, I also have to make competitive hardware. Where do I get the money to develop a CPU competitive with Apple's? I would have to be a company as big as they are to do that, or bigger to overcome the advantages of incumbency, but nobody is as big as Apple. Microsoft, which is nearly as big, tried and failed. Amazon's Fire line is just an Android fork running on commodity hardware.
Who do you propose has the resources to unseat the incumbents at this point?
> I see a lot of devs/publishers complaining and not a lot of users.
That's a big part of the problem -- the users lack visibility into the inner workings. How many iPhone customers even realize that competing stores are prohibited, or that Apple bans things they may want? They don't see the apps they want that Apple prohibits, because when they're prohibited they don't exist. When they're prohibited the developers are starved of access to their own customers and destroyed, or never exist to begin with, which means they can't campaign to the users for their inclusion.
The developers can't even show the users how much they're paying, or offer discounts for purchases made through other channels, because Apple prohibits it.
So of course it's the developers complaining, because they're the ones who can see what's happening behind the scenes. But the users are still being harmed, even if that's being hidden from them.
And the lack of user awareness is another impediment to establishing a new competing platform.
The problem is it's chicken and egg. To get users you need apps, to get app developers you need users. To overcome that you don't just need something which is as good as the status quo, you need something so much better that people will switch to it despite the apps conundrum.
Apple got there by being first to market with a modern smartphone. Google got there by undercutting the competition on price. Neither of those are a possible path for a new competitor. They can't be first to market anymore, and they can't undercut Android on price because its price is already zero.
The usual way underdog platforms avoid this is by establishing compatibility with the competitor's apps. Sun created Java so that people would write their apps in Java, which would then run on Solaris/SPARC as well as Windows/Intel. Wine allows Windows programs to run on Linux.
But that doesn't work here either, because of the very problem the new platform would be needed to solve. Even if you created a competing platform that could run Android apps or iOS apps, it wouldn't have Google or Apple's store, which is where all the existing apps are. The user of your new platform can't go to the developer's website to get the existing app and run it on your new platform because the existing platforms don't allow apps to be distributed that way. So you have to convince all the existing developers to use your store, and avoid use of Google Play Services etc., before you have any users that would give developers the incentive to spend their time doing that.
Moreover, the incumbents are vertically integrated. If I think I can make a better OS than Apple, to capture their customers I don't just need to convert all their developers, I also have to make competitive hardware. Where do I get the money to develop a CPU competitive with Apple's? I would have to be a company as big as they are to do that, or bigger to overcome the advantages of incumbency, but nobody is as big as Apple. Microsoft, which is nearly as big, tried and failed. Amazon's Fire line is just an Android fork running on commodity hardware.
Who do you propose has the resources to unseat the incumbents at this point?
> I see a lot of devs/publishers complaining and not a lot of users.
That's a big part of the problem -- the users lack visibility into the inner workings. How many iPhone customers even realize that competing stores are prohibited, or that Apple bans things they may want? They don't see the apps they want that Apple prohibits, because when they're prohibited they don't exist. When they're prohibited the developers are starved of access to their own customers and destroyed, or never exist to begin with, which means they can't campaign to the users for their inclusion.
The developers can't even show the users how much they're paying, or offer discounts for purchases made through other channels, because Apple prohibits it.
So of course it's the developers complaining, because they're the ones who can see what's happening behind the scenes. But the users are still being harmed, even if that's being hidden from them.
And the lack of user awareness is another impediment to establishing a new competing platform.
> The problem is it's chicken and egg. To get users you need apps, to get app developers you need users.
I didn't say it would be easy. :-) It is a huge can of worms to declare the current smartphone + app store design as a public utility to be preserved for 50 years, when this industry is barely 12 years old at this point.
> To overcome that you don't just need something which is as good as the status quo, you need something so much better that people will switch to it despite the apps conundrum.
Yes. I don't think it will come from "the smartphone" market which has already been won. It will come by some disruptor that eats into adjacencies: AR, VR, wearables, etc. Apple actually has a good chance to retain their position because everyone has underestimated how important Apple Watch could become, plus their investments in AR.
> Who do you propose has the resources to unseat the incumbents at this point?
Alibaba group, Facebook, Valve, Tencent, Huawei, Amazon, and Microsoft.
> That's a big part of the problem -- the users lack visibility into the inner workings. How many iPhone customers even realize that competing stores are prohibited, or that Apple bans things they may want?
I think most users are broadly aware that Apple control things and take a cut. Most people have to deal with Kindle or Audible and having to buy that content via a different app or the browser. IMO the current legal argument is broadly not about banned apps, it's about profit margins.
> The developers can't even show the users how much they're paying, or offer discounts for purchases made through other channels, because Apple prohibits it.
So does every other platform provider though. Publishers and retailers can't discount Nintendo switch games unless Nintendo approves it. This goes back 40 years to Atari.
> And the lack of user awareness is another impediment to establishing a new competing platform.
I think the bigger issue is if users actually prefer the current curated arrangement.
I didn't say it would be easy. :-) It is a huge can of worms to declare the current smartphone + app store design as a public utility to be preserved for 50 years, when this industry is barely 12 years old at this point.
> To overcome that you don't just need something which is as good as the status quo, you need something so much better that people will switch to it despite the apps conundrum.
Yes. I don't think it will come from "the smartphone" market which has already been won. It will come by some disruptor that eats into adjacencies: AR, VR, wearables, etc. Apple actually has a good chance to retain their position because everyone has underestimated how important Apple Watch could become, plus their investments in AR.
> Who do you propose has the resources to unseat the incumbents at this point?
Alibaba group, Facebook, Valve, Tencent, Huawei, Amazon, and Microsoft.
> That's a big part of the problem -- the users lack visibility into the inner workings. How many iPhone customers even realize that competing stores are prohibited, or that Apple bans things they may want?
I think most users are broadly aware that Apple control things and take a cut. Most people have to deal with Kindle or Audible and having to buy that content via a different app or the browser. IMO the current legal argument is broadly not about banned apps, it's about profit margins.
> The developers can't even show the users how much they're paying, or offer discounts for purchases made through other channels, because Apple prohibits it.
So does every other platform provider though. Publishers and retailers can't discount Nintendo switch games unless Nintendo approves it. This goes back 40 years to Atari.
> And the lack of user awareness is another impediment to establishing a new competing platform.
I think the bigger issue is if users actually prefer the current curated arrangement.
> It is a huge can of worms to declare the current smartphone + app store design as a public utility to be preserved for 50 years, when this industry is barely 12 years old at this point.
Who is making it a public utility? Just prohibit anyone from restricting users from using alternative app stores or sideloading their own apps. It's the opposite of making it a utility -- it's ensuring that competition exists.
> I don't think it will come from "the smartphone" market which has already been won. It will come by some disruptor that eats into adjacencies: AR, VR, wearables, etc.
You also have the problem that the successor need not be any better. If one of those things replaces the smartphone, but the new incumbent still restricts users in what apps they can install, unseating the old incumbents hasn't actually solved the problem.
> Alibaba group, Facebook, Valve, Tencent, Huawei, Amazon, and Microsoft.
Microsoft and Amazon already tried and failed, and none of those others are as big or even making an attempt.
> I think most users are broadly aware that Apple control things and take a cut.
They're vaguely aware that it happens, but not of what that means to them. The opaque and arbitrary criteria they use for rejections, or the implications for app price and quality of transferring wealth from small developers to the world's largest corporation. So it feels like somebody else's problem. And when Apple and Google both do it, something they have no meaningful choice in regardless.
> So does every other platform provider though. Publishers and retailers can't discount Nintendo switch games unless Nintendo approves it. This goes back 40 years to Atari.
And they should prohibit the lot of it. It was never different, it had just never been big enough to matter this much, because before it was only games and not everything.
> I think the bigger issue is if users actually prefer the current curated arrangement.
Which we could find out if the vertical integration was removed and the users could choose a curated store or not, independent of which phone they buy.
Who is making it a public utility? Just prohibit anyone from restricting users from using alternative app stores or sideloading their own apps. It's the opposite of making it a utility -- it's ensuring that competition exists.
> I don't think it will come from "the smartphone" market which has already been won. It will come by some disruptor that eats into adjacencies: AR, VR, wearables, etc.
You also have the problem that the successor need not be any better. If one of those things replaces the smartphone, but the new incumbent still restricts users in what apps they can install, unseating the old incumbents hasn't actually solved the problem.
> Alibaba group, Facebook, Valve, Tencent, Huawei, Amazon, and Microsoft.
Microsoft and Amazon already tried and failed, and none of those others are as big or even making an attempt.
> I think most users are broadly aware that Apple control things and take a cut.
They're vaguely aware that it happens, but not of what that means to them. The opaque and arbitrary criteria they use for rejections, or the implications for app price and quality of transferring wealth from small developers to the world's largest corporation. So it feels like somebody else's problem. And when Apple and Google both do it, something they have no meaningful choice in regardless.
> So does every other platform provider though. Publishers and retailers can't discount Nintendo switch games unless Nintendo approves it. This goes back 40 years to Atari.
And they should prohibit the lot of it. It was never different, it had just never been big enough to matter this much, because before it was only games and not everything.
> I think the bigger issue is if users actually prefer the current curated arrangement.
Which we could find out if the vertical integration was removed and the users could choose a curated store or not, independent of which phone they buy.
The libertarian argument is a fever dream.
There will be no wild west. If you're in India, you will be using the Indian government approved service. In China, you will be using Chinese government approved services. In Africa, you will be using ECOWAS, EAC, or SADC approved services. In Brazil, you will be using.. well, you get the idea.
Material point being, none of these services will be made by developers outside of those regions. There will be no wild west, what's forming up is very much the opposite of the wild west. It is governmental control with radical reach. Worse, it's forming up to be balkanized governmental control with radical reach.
There will be no wild west. If you're in India, you will be using the Indian government approved service. In China, you will be using Chinese government approved services. In Africa, you will be using ECOWAS, EAC, or SADC approved services. In Brazil, you will be using.. well, you get the idea.
Material point being, none of these services will be made by developers outside of those regions. There will be no wild west, what's forming up is very much the opposite of the wild west. It is governmental control with radical reach. Worse, it's forming up to be balkanized governmental control with radical reach.
> In China, you will be using Chinese government approved services.
First of all, this is only about app stores. When it comes to “services” in general, people in China already do mostly use government approved ones; the Great Firewall makes sure of that.
Today, you use Apple’s App Store, but Apple blocks whatever apps the Chinese government tells them to. Is that really such a great situation? Under a sideloading model, at least you’d have the technical ability to opt out of whatever app store anyone told you to use.
As for legal ability, who knows, but any legal restrictions on where you can get apps from would be hard to enforce. And why would phones be any different from desktops, where such restrictions don’t currently exist?
First of all, this is only about app stores. When it comes to “services” in general, people in China already do mostly use government approved ones; the Great Firewall makes sure of that.
Today, you use Apple’s App Store, but Apple blocks whatever apps the Chinese government tells them to. Is that really such a great situation? Under a sideloading model, at least you’d have the technical ability to opt out of whatever app store anyone told you to use.
As for legal ability, who knows, but any legal restrictions on where you can get apps from would be hard to enforce. And why would phones be any different from desktops, where such restrictions don’t currently exist?
> Libertarian Wild West on our phones where anyone can install anything from any store
An important distinction is that while I can install whatever I want on my phone and you can install whatever you want on your phone, removing Apple's monopoly on distribution wouldn't make our phones world-writable to "anyone".
> Mobile operators alone will balk at that.
They didn't. We already had multiple app stores for J2ME, Windows CE and Symbian apps before Apple started the trend of locking things down.
An important distinction is that while I can install whatever I want on my phone and you can install whatever you want on your phone, removing Apple's monopoly on distribution wouldn't make our phones world-writable to "anyone".
> Mobile operators alone will balk at that.
They didn't. We already had multiple app stores for J2ME, Windows CE and Symbian apps before Apple started the trend of locking things down.
> They didn't. We already had multiple app stores for J2ME, Windows CE and Symbian apps before Apple started the trend of locking things down.
There were no "App Stores" for J2ME apps, per se. You certainly could buy and install apps from ISVs, but they were heavily locked down based on carrier policy. I developed apps for WinCE, Palm and Blackberry and the carrier-mandatory permissions were strict depending on the jurisdiction. The devices that weren't restricted were e.g. WinCE devices that were sync'd and not network connected.
Apple just took the decades old old trend started by console manufacturers and applied it to Mobile.
There were no "App Stores" for J2ME apps, per se. You certainly could buy and install apps from ISVs, but they were heavily locked down based on carrier policy. I developed apps for WinCE, Palm and Blackberry and the carrier-mandatory permissions were strict depending on the jurisdiction. The devices that weren't restricted were e.g. WinCE devices that were sync'd and not network connected.
Apple just took the decades old old trend started by console manufacturers and applied it to Mobile.
By "locking things down" I meant locking down distribution to a single app store. Certainly J2ME apps were locked down via a system of permissions, where you had to buy a code signing cert to be granted the more interesting ones.
But you could still install them from multiple sources, e.g. the phone manufacturer, the carrier, the software vendor directly, or even via Bluetooth. And unsigned apps were granted enough permissions to be perfectly viable in many cases.
The "carrier policy" you mention might be a US-specific problem.
But you could still install them from multiple sources, e.g. the phone manufacturer, the carrier, the software vendor directly, or even via Bluetooth. And unsigned apps were granted enough permissions to be perfectly viable in many cases.
The "carrier policy" you mention might be a US-specific problem.
> Mobile operators alone will balk at that.
I don't think that's a consideration anymore. When the iPhone was brand-new, Apple had a ton of trouble negotiating with carriers who were used to controlling what goes on their network. Nowadays, carriers have very little say beyond things like PCTRB certification and a mostly-cursory review of OS-level OTA updates. When it comes to apps (or even app stores), the carriers don't even get notified, let alone get veto powers.
I don't think that's a consideration anymore. When the iPhone was brand-new, Apple had a ton of trouble negotiating with carriers who were used to controlling what goes on their network. Nowadays, carriers have very little say beyond things like PCTRB certification and a mostly-cursory review of OS-level OTA updates. When it comes to apps (or even app stores), the carriers don't even get notified, let alone get veto powers.
"Apple threads, this is the point: government is somehow going to do a better job than Apple or Google."
No, it's absolutely not.
It's about user and vendor choice.
Nobody is suggesting that the 'US Government' make an alternative app store.
But a lot of people are suggesting that people should be able to buy directly from Epic, Adobe - or whoever.
No, it's absolutely not.
It's about user and vendor choice.
Nobody is suggesting that the 'US Government' make an alternative app store.
But a lot of people are suggesting that people should be able to buy directly from Epic, Adobe - or whoever.
This is the "Libertarian wild west" option, and it will not happen under even the EU. Multiple app stores will only exist with government oversight and an agreed regulatory framework for reviewing apps for admission.
A government that knows what it is doing may do a better job at it.
So let me put in decreasing order of who will do a good job according to what is good for the users:
- government that knows what it is doing
- government
- authoritarian government
- authoritarian government that knows what it is doing
So let me put in decreasing order of who will do a good job according to what is good for the users:
- government that knows what it is doing
- government
- authoritarian government
- authoritarian government that knows what it is doing
Privacy and Freedom are the same thing. If you dont have privacy, you cannot do anything as a group or individual that goes against anyone powerful. Freedom can also be thought of as sovereignty. I think if any government including USA has to be sovereign, it has to take privacy of citizens in its own hands. Democratic countries have to devise ways that this data cannot be used to influence elections. Otherwise, Keep in mind Google is no democracy. This data cannot be better off with a corporation because they maintain their database security better.
>If you dont have privacy, you cannot do anything as a group or individual that goes against anyone powerful. Freedom can also be thought of as sovereignty.
Seems like a pretty one-sided American cowboy version of freedom.
More accurate take I think is that privacy is often a tool of the powerful stopping collective action of citizens. Finance, taxes, and payment compensation are a pretty trivial example. The rich and powerful love their financial privacy, ordinary citizens gain little from it. Wage earners who benefit from their status love that they don't have to share their income with coworkers who may be discriminated against.
I think the opposite is true. It's not privacy but transparency that is required if groups are supposed to be able to take action against the powerful.
Seems like a pretty one-sided American cowboy version of freedom.
More accurate take I think is that privacy is often a tool of the powerful stopping collective action of citizens. Finance, taxes, and payment compensation are a pretty trivial example. The rich and powerful love their financial privacy, ordinary citizens gain little from it. Wage earners who benefit from their status love that they don't have to share their income with coworkers who may be discriminated against.
I think the opposite is true. It's not privacy but transparency that is required if groups are supposed to be able to take action against the powerful.
can you build a company if you were required to make all your future plans transparent to all competitors? Transparency and Privacy both have their place. Everyone should have privacy of information but the rules of privacy should be open to everyone.
Perhaps this will force Google and Apple to come with alternatives without the downsides you mention?
This is the downside to involving regulation in a technological space. Government intervention isn't a technological problem and doesn't admit technological solutions. The government can ban any alternative or workaround you can imagine in specific or in general, and moreover can ban the act itself of working on alternatives and workarounds.
Fact of the matter is there's nothing too scary about living in China as long as you are not involved in politics. The scary thing about a BJP lead authoritarian regime is that unlike the CCP, BJP is made of a bunch of idiots. CCP is authoritarian, but they have made sure every Chinese has food on the table, a roof on their head and one can live an honest life in China without having to be corrupt. Crime rates in China are fairly low and one can walk on the street in the middle of the night without living in fear of lynching or raping. This is not true of India. Even doing simple things requires you to have connections or pay bribes.
Additionally, CCP actually thinks through its policies whereas BJP rolls a policy out and then does a 180 degree turn. Just look at the COVID-19 epidemic. China actually managed to end it because it was authoritarian (even if you don't believe the CCP's numbers you cannot deny that they have managed the situation far better than a lot of other governments). BJP had the opportunity to do so but somewhere along the way decided that they could just follow Trump.
Additionally, CCP actually thinks through its policies whereas BJP rolls a policy out and then does a 180 degree turn. Just look at the COVID-19 epidemic. China actually managed to end it because it was authoritarian (even if you don't believe the CCP's numbers you cannot deny that they have managed the situation far better than a lot of other governments). BJP had the opportunity to do so but somewhere along the way decided that they could just follow Trump.
> Fact of the matter is there's nothing too scary about living in China as long as you are not involved in politics.
Just curious, who decides what's politics and what isn't in China?
Just curious, who decides what's politics and what isn't in China?
The fact that the CCP are competent authoritarians and the BJP are incompetent semi-authoritarians isn't really in dispute. But the claim that there's nothing scary about living in China if you're not "involved in politics" (whatever that means) is completely absurd.
I lived there, I've also lived in India. I hate to put it this way but for practical reasons it is far safer to live in China than in India. CCP also takes the pains to make sure Children are not out on the street begging. I could go out at midnight without worrying about being lynched - to me this is a more fundamental freedom than freedom of political expression. Believe it or not China does allow their authorities to be criticized. If I wrote this comment online in China, I would not actually be censored. Yes there are topics that are considered taboo. But such topics are fairly limited.
> there's nothing too scary about living in China as long as you are not involved in politics
Does "being an Uyghur" count as involved in politics, as that sounds difficult to avoid if you're stuck with it? The reports of torture, forced sterilisation, detention sound rather scary to me.
> every Chinese has food on the table, a roof on their head and one can live an honest life
Maybe I'm misinformed, but what I read tells me "every" is a stretch here. I don't automatically trust Wikipedia on everything. But the fact the USA passed a law with strong bipartisan support makes me treat it a little more seriously.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uyghurs#Persecution_of_Uyghurs...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uyghur_Human_Rights_Policy_Act
Does "being an Uyghur" count as involved in politics, as that sounds difficult to avoid if you're stuck with it? The reports of torture, forced sterilisation, detention sound rather scary to me.
> every Chinese has food on the table, a roof on their head and one can live an honest life
Maybe I'm misinformed, but what I read tells me "every" is a stretch here. I don't automatically trust Wikipedia on everything. But the fact the USA passed a law with strong bipartisan support makes me treat it a little more seriously.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uyghurs#Persecution_of_Uyghurs...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uyghur_Human_Rights_Policy_Act
authoritarianism is when a ex judicial company has so strong influence over regulations and those adjudicated arbitrarily and in-transparent and the effected party couldn't do a damn thing about it..
while it's not the best solution, there is merit to it.
one of the role of governance could be to help setup an environment for healthy competition. Well it took decades of work at NASA before one private player like space x created momentum outside government.
while it's not the best solution, there is merit to it.
one of the role of governance could be to help setup an environment for healthy competition. Well it took decades of work at NASA before one private player like space x created momentum outside government.
I welcome this.
It will be messy, it will open oportunities to corruption, lobbying, crappy user experiences, unsafe apps, government abuse, nationalism, ... it is really a Pandora box.
But mess can be a fertile ground for competition and innovation when excessive regulation blocks it.
Today's app stores are just feature development labs for Apple & Google. There is no chance that anyone will be able to create a big business within any app store and keep Apple or Google out. Just ask big players as Steam, Facebook and Microsoft how they feel about Google's and Apple's stores.
If you're in the apps development business then you're just looking for golden opportunities for Apple/Google and being very badly payed for that.
It will be messy, it will open oportunities to corruption, lobbying, crappy user experiences, unsafe apps, government abuse, nationalism, ... it is really a Pandora box.
But mess can be a fertile ground for competition and innovation when excessive regulation blocks it.
Today's app stores are just feature development labs for Apple & Google. There is no chance that anyone will be able to create a big business within any app store and keep Apple or Google out. Just ask big players as Steam, Facebook and Microsoft how they feel about Google's and Apple's stores.
If you're in the apps development business then you're just looking for golden opportunities for Apple/Google and being very badly payed for that.
I am just puzzled about one bit of this, why the hue and cry few days back about this. Don't Android App stores like the Amazon one already exist? What's stopping these devs to even distribute the apps themselves?
iOS is a different matter but Android has always allowed this. Not sure if they exist in India, but I have seen Android phones come with non Google App Store as well.
iOS is a different matter but Android has always allowed this. Not sure if they exist in India, but I have seen Android phones come with non Google App Store as well.
Yes alternative Android app stores already exist. For example Samsung devices have their own proprietary app store pre-loaded.
Yeah alternate app stores exist but when something like this is driven from a nation stare, the Indian govt will most likely mandate inclusion of their AppStore on Android and iOS. Once it is loaded on by default, you suddenly gain 800 million strong distribution channel. It would be a no-brainer for devs to put their app on the strore. The same case could not have been made for Amazon's and Samsung's store.
Putting apps on Samsung's Galaxy Store gives developers access to the 893 million Samsung smartphone users[1] who have the app installed by default, so an ever stronger case can be made for it than the government's proposed app store. Yet it does not have anywhere close to the same number of apps or devs.
1. https://www.forbes.com/sites/panosmourdoukoutas/2018/09/13/s...
1. https://www.forbes.com/sites/panosmourdoukoutas/2018/09/13/s...
> Yeah alternate app stores exist but when something like this is driven from a nation stare, the Indian govt will most likely mandate inclusion of their AppStore on Android and iOS. Once it is loaded on by default, you suddenly gain 800 million strong distribution channel. It would be a no-brainer for devs to put their app on the strore.
What is the problem with this? If the device manufacturers don't want to preload the Indian Appstore then they can prevent sale of their devices in India. If they agree, and this is limited to India only, then what is the problem?
What is the problem with this? If the device manufacturers don't want to preload the Indian Appstore then they can prevent sale of their devices in India. If they agree, and this is limited to India only, then what is the problem?
Won't Apple just refuse to sell iPhones in India?
That would result in a somewhat strange situation considering Apple is trying to move at least some iPhone manufacturing to India.
https://9to5mac.com/2020/08/17/indian-iphone-production-begi...
https://9to5mac.com/2020/08/17/indian-iphone-production-begi...
No. It won't.
This enables tax revenues for the Indian government.
Pretty sure they are already getting tax money from the existing app stores. Do you have any source that they don't?
https://inc42.com/buzz/indian-govt-likely-to-tax-google-face...
They only collect a limited subset of taxes (VAT). The larger part of income is to the US and isn't taxed in India yet.
They only collect a limited subset of taxes (VAT). The larger part of income is to the US and isn't taxed in India yet.
I would say that the government is not the right institution to take this up. They should support secondary app stores, or legislate to force Apple and Google to make their stores more developer friendly. Getting involved in this business, goes against their own narrative. On one hand, we are privatizing state owned companies and on the other, we are taking up vanity projects which the tax payer has to fund. Do check up on our new government building, that no one apart from the powers that be asked for.
Also, this announcement very much coincided with an attempt from some of the major apps in introducing a form of sports betting (see IPL), which was thwarted by the very same Google and Apple, in line with the laws of our country. All over, it seems like American tech. giants are more pro-indian-consumer than our own government, which is tremendously dissappointing in and of itself.
3rd party app stores that are not pre installed by the manufacturer are crippled and provide a bad user experience. Auto updates is also not possible.
But big businesses have been created so it's not entirely true.
Do you have any good examples where you think innovation has been stifled on the play store? (Apple's app store aside)
Do you have any good examples where you think innovation has been stifled on the play store? (Apple's app store aside)
> big businesses have been created so it's not entirely true.
examples?
examples?
Snapchat, Instagram, TikTok...
all vc-supported , with huge money. not exactly the "indie studie that made it big" type. But more importantly, those are a decade ago (and TikTok reportedly bought its users).
At this point it doesnt seem there is any potential for making a profitable app company, the profit would be to be acquired
At this point it doesnt seem there is any potential for making a profitable app company, the profit would be to be acquired
Tiktok?
>The sources said, "Android has 97% market share in India so we should intervene and handhold Indian startups. Making it mandatory for Android phones to be pre-instaled with our apps in under consideration". [1]
Indian Government being arbiter of the app ecosystem on a phone and pre installing apps? Ominous vibes. Good luck with your desire for competition and innovation.
[1] - https://www.timesnownews.com/business-economy/industry/artic...
Indian Government being arbiter of the app ecosystem on a phone and pre installing apps? Ominous vibes. Good luck with your desire for competition and innovation.
[1] - https://www.timesnownews.com/business-economy/industry/artic...
So they are competing on same terms as google, in practice. Thats good
I'd like to think the Indian government will have the interests of its own citizens at heart better than Google or Apple. India has a long and not very pleasant history with foreign corporations.
Haha no. The Indian government will have the best interests of the ruling party at heart. I'd rather trust Google with all of my data, even the sensitive bits, rather than give even an iota to the government. And yes, I know how disgusting that sounds.
In the Delhi riots early this year, the government used data gathered from the national database to track and arrest protesters. Imagine what they could do if they could track your phones. At least Google is only selling me real estate ads (woefully inaccurate ones too) and not actively trying to imprison me or my family (bonus points if you're a minority).
In the Delhi riots early this year, the government used data gathered from the national database to track and arrest protesters. Imagine what they could do if they could track your phones. At least Google is only selling me real estate ads (woefully inaccurate ones too) and not actively trying to imprison me or my family (bonus points if you're a minority).
If you're a tech entrepreneur, this should worry you regardless. Any industry that the Indian government meddles in eventually gets regulated to death. You have to pay bribes for X or Y license or permission.
The tech industry thrived precisely because there is little regulation.
If your apps have to go through the Indian government to be published, be prepared to pay bribes to pass through the regulatory hurdles and needless paperwork.
No Indian government in my living memory has worked to reduce regulations and compliance, including the current one.
The tech industry thrived precisely because there is little regulation.
If your apps have to go through the Indian government to be published, be prepared to pay bribes to pass through the regulatory hurdles and needless paperwork.
No Indian government in my living memory has worked to reduce regulations and compliance, including the current one.
The fact that you mentioned "paperwork" for an app store application sums up exactly how this whole mess will turn out. :)
This Indian government has certainly reduced regulations and compliance - if you're in the B club. I have a distant grand uncle and an uncle both in the B club. They were essentially waved through to set up shop in UP - even though they're Muslim, openly religious and practicing, and have literally been photographed very often inviting Rahul Gandhi and other Congress leaders to their homes right before elections.
Money talks. I mentioned in another comment on HN, that if you are in the B club, you're likely the one ordering the gangsters in the government.
This Indian government has certainly reduced regulations and compliance - if you're in the B club. I have a distant grand uncle and an uncle both in the B club. They were essentially waved through to set up shop in UP - even though they're Muslim, openly religious and practicing, and have literally been photographed very often inviting Rahul Gandhi and other Congress leaders to their homes right before elections.
Money talks. I mentioned in another comment on HN, that if you are in the B club, you're likely the one ordering the gangsters in the government.
I run a very small online business incorporated as a Pvt Ltd. There is more paperwork now than ever with GST. What's worse is that the regulations keep changing every few months. Tax rates change, deadlines change, exemption limits change. One of the most flawed and confusing taxes I've ever had the displeasure of dealing with.
The thing is, why would anyone voluntarily use a censored/restricted app store?
For Apple hell yes, maybe their government app store will be less anal than Apple is with their own app store, and e.g. allow other payment channels and allow embedding other rendering engines than Safari.
For Google though ... why wouldn't one just use the Google store instead? It's pretty open, and if their government's motive is to just create a subset of the Play store that doesn't have Chinese apps, why the hell would anyone use it?
And if the government is forcing the entire population to use its app store -- do they have the authority to do that? I thought India was a democracy with free speech.
For Apple hell yes, maybe their government app store will be less anal than Apple is with their own app store, and e.g. allow other payment channels and allow embedding other rendering engines than Safari.
For Google though ... why wouldn't one just use the Google store instead? It's pretty open, and if their government's motive is to just create a subset of the Play store that doesn't have Chinese apps, why the hell would anyone use it?
And if the government is forcing the entire population to use its app store -- do they have the authority to do that? I thought India was a democracy with free speech.
>> It's pretty open
I disagree. It's the quite opposite. So many popular apps don't even get a notice before getting banned, let alone small indie developers trying to get some users.
>> why the hell would anyone use it?
Not sure about others but I definetly don't want a US company to put nose in everything I do online. Plus I don't want to give a 30% cut for a regional app that I can publish on some local platform for local users. And I would rather deal with low quality apps than popular apps disappearing every now and then just because Google doesn't like them.
>> do they have the authority to do that?
Yes but it's not practical in country like India to enforce it. Free speech and what govt can regulate about internet are different things as far I've seen.
I disagree. It's the quite opposite. So many popular apps don't even get a notice before getting banned, let alone small indie developers trying to get some users.
>> why the hell would anyone use it?
Not sure about others but I definetly don't want a US company to put nose in everything I do online. Plus I don't want to give a 30% cut for a regional app that I can publish on some local platform for local users. And I would rather deal with low quality apps than popular apps disappearing every now and then just because Google doesn't like them.
>> do they have the authority to do that?
Yes but it's not practical in country like India to enforce it. Free speech and what govt can regulate about internet are different things as far I've seen.
> I thought India was a democracy with free speech
The First Amendment is radically unprecedented and unique, in its text, judicial upholding and cultural backing.
While India technically has freedoms of speech, in practice it is heavily regulated [1].
[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_expression_in_Ind...
The First Amendment is radically unprecedented and unique, in its text, judicial upholding and cultural backing.
While India technically has freedoms of speech, in practice it is heavily regulated [1].
[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_expression_in_Ind...
You're confused. India has a populist, nationalist authoritarian who will stop at nothing to remodel the country somewhere between China and Nazi Germany.
The Indian government can block all other app stores, require app developers and mobile OSes install spyware SDKs and turn over data about their users, and ban encryption. Then, the "subversives," academics, and journalists can be rounded-up.
The Indian government can block all other app stores, require app developers and mobile OSes install spyware SDKs and turn over data about their users, and ban encryption. Then, the "subversives," academics, and journalists can be rounded-up.
You are the one who is confused here with all the fear mongering. With such a huge democratic country like India with all the decades old entrenched power centres one doesn't get to power just by getting elected to office.
I welcome the idea that Apple should be required to allow third-party app stores, but the only end game I see with a government app store is a legally-mandated requirement to have that app store installed on all citizens'/residents' phones. At that point the phones just become extensions of the state's intelligence apparatus, and that's a net negative for everyone's privacy.
Apple should certainly allow alternative app stores, and Google should make it easier and safer for customers to install alternative app stores, but I never want to see governments get into that market.
Apple should certainly allow alternative app stores, and Google should make it easier and safer for customers to install alternative app stores, but I never want to see governments get into that market.
Since the title mentions the idea as well as the govt, let me add that while the idea is excellent, the current (Modi) govt is incompetent when it comes to execution, or may be has some other interests. Examples - failed demonetization, poor implementation of Goods and Services Tax (GST), failed Covid-19 lockdown. Most of what the govt does benefits select corporates (eg. rise of Jio). Interestingly, Paytm benefited the most during demonetization (2016) which is mentioned in the article and might have catalyzed the idea. The important part to notice is that demonetization was aimed at wiping out black money, GST was supposed to improve taxation, Covid-19 lockdown was supposed to dampen the long-term effect. However, these steps which were supposed to improve economy turned out to be counter-productive. Due to the poor or misdirected execution, India's economic is tanking down. So, although self-dependence is the stated goal, I am not sure where it will land. Moreover, the authoritarian tendencies don't help either. They are known to blackout journalists, assassinate lawyer, conduct media trials and put anyone speaking against them in jail. They will be a bigger bully than Google/Apple and pose a bigger risk to privacy.
>>>They are known to blackout journalists, assassinate lawyer, conduct media trials and put anyone speaking against them in jail.
Can you please share some citation for the assassination part. I don't think the Bar Council of India would be happy if a lawyer is assassinated by government.
Can you please share some citation for the assassination part. I don't think the Bar Council of India would be happy if a lawyer is assassinated by government.
I am talking about Justice Loya [1].
By the way, the govt has been very active in making sure that they have their loyal representatives in bureaucracy as well as in judiciary. Recently, the Supreme Court convicted a prominent lawyer for a tweet criticizing them [2]. It is very easy for them to dismiss cases which might show them in bad light. Media has no independence either. Eg. the case of Punya Prasun Bajpai [3] who's show was blacked out and eventually cancelled because it was critical of Modi.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brijgopal_Harkishan_Loya
[2] https://www.nytimes.com/2020/08/31/world/asia/india-bhushan-...
[3] https://thewire.in/media/punya-prasun-bajpai-abp-news-narend...
By the way, the govt has been very active in making sure that they have their loyal representatives in bureaucracy as well as in judiciary. Recently, the Supreme Court convicted a prominent lawyer for a tweet criticizing them [2]. It is very easy for them to dismiss cases which might show them in bad light. Media has no independence either. Eg. the case of Punya Prasun Bajpai [3] who's show was blacked out and eventually cancelled because it was critical of Modi.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brijgopal_Harkishan_Loya
[2] https://www.nytimes.com/2020/08/31/world/asia/india-bhushan-...
[3] https://thewire.in/media/punya-prasun-bajpai-abp-news-narend...
This is complete BS you are spreading here. Justice Loya family clarified in detail and his fraternity many of whom are left leaning also expressed concern that the opposition party is playing dirty politics and his death was natural. One of the Supreme Court justice was even by his bedside during his death. Entire Indian media should be blacked out if criticising Modi was the criteria. Because that's what they do day in day out barring a very few.
Anyone in India know PPB is affiliated with AAP has pulled out too many stunts to be any credible.
Anyone in India know PPB is affiliated with AAP has pulled out too many stunts to be any credible.
You are not too off from what has already been stated in the link, just that you cherry-picked it. Regarding criticism, Modi himself tweeted that "criticism makes democracy stronger"[1] so why should anyone get blacked out!
[1] https://twitter.com/pmoindia/status/986672508542824456
[1] https://twitter.com/pmoindia/status/986672508542824456
India has a following issue with Android ecosystem, almost everything not owned by Google, is owned by some Chinese co.
GetJar - sold to Chinese
PayTM - Chinese shareholder
Flipcart - Chinese shareholder
Zomato, swiggy, + 10+ others online delivery/logistics apps. Some used to be reskins of Chinese apps. Some only have Indian C-levels.
20 something messengers - all except FB, and Twiter are Chinese
...
I believe they quickly realised that to ban Chinese apps, they have to ban a lion share of apps in daily use, and here this app store comes.
---
P.S. As I understand, a huge amount of Android phones in the third world doesn't have Google App store pre-installed, as manufacturers don't bother to go through arduous Google certification for low end phones, or provide OTA updates. This is why things like GetJar are still a thing there.
GetJar - sold to Chinese
PayTM - Chinese shareholder
Flipcart - Chinese shareholder
Zomato, swiggy, + 10+ others online delivery/logistics apps. Some used to be reskins of Chinese apps. Some only have Indian C-levels.
20 something messengers - all except FB, and Twiter are Chinese
...
I believe they quickly realised that to ban Chinese apps, they have to ban a lion share of apps in daily use, and here this app store comes.
---
P.S. As I understand, a huge amount of Android phones in the third world doesn't have Google App store pre-installed, as manufacturers don't bother to go through arduous Google certification for low end phones, or provide OTA updates. This is why things like GetJar are still a thing there.
As far as I recall, Walmart bought Flipkart. I haven't seen it mentioned much in the business press related to Walmart after acquisition though.
How does having Chinese shareholders(in minority) make an app Chinese?
bhaavan(8)
It will be a special kind of joy for small developers to publish their apps on a billion stores each with its own regulations.
... or they could just create a PWA and publish it on the free and open web and have the app be available globally in 40s w/o any regulations or artificial restrictions.
Except the ability to send push notifications, which is paramount to retention and revenue
According to the article, India is 97% Android, and so Progressive Web Apps can send push notifications: https://developers.google.com/web/ilt/pwa/introduction-to-pu...
(Disclosure: I work for Google, speaking only for myself)
(Disclosure: I work for Google, speaking only for myself)
and user spam as well. I am thankful for new versions of Android giving notification control to the users.
The web notifications API has become yet another vector for spam. The standard should’ve had a way to proactively deal with spammy developers.
[deleted]
> retention and revenue
By which you mean, pissing off power users?
Or as Google puts it in equally bullshit terms:
> They allow your users to opt-in to timely updates and allow you to effectively re-engage users with customized content.
By which you mean, pissing off power users?
Or as Google puts it in equally bullshit terms:
> They allow your users to opt-in to timely updates and allow you to effectively re-engage users with customized content.
PWAs are not as good as real apps though.
I use them wherever I can because they allow me to block ads, analytics and other unpleasant elements like nudges, etc.
But I'm far from an expert. What would be the benefit of a non-pw app?
But I'm far from an expert. What would be the benefit of a non-pw app?
* You can use all the device APIs, not just the ones that have been exposed as web APIs.
* They're way faster and less janky.
* You don't to use endless workarounds to disable typical web behaviour when you don't want it.
PWAs are probably suitable for basic apps that just display information, e.g. an app for an event, or a pub or whatever. You would be insane to try and make a "real" app like Snapchat or Google Maps as a PWA though.
* They're way faster and less janky.
* You don't to use endless workarounds to disable typical web behaviour when you don't want it.
PWAs are probably suitable for basic apps that just display information, e.g. an app for an event, or a pub or whatever. You would be insane to try and make a "real" app like Snapchat or Google Maps as a PWA though.
Google's Android UI toolkit is slower than Chrome building UI from HTML, sadly. So it's not a clear win for native apps (unless the native app is using HTML for UI, I guess).
That said, I don't think PWAs have a good way to get background data updates, which is unfortunate for apps that could work offline. You can't do a silent push to update data, last I checked, anyway. (Use case: I want a weather app that has current/recent data without loading when I start the app, because I often start the app in dead zones; also I want to have it background fetch the data when my location changes).
That said, I don't think PWAs have a good way to get background data updates, which is unfortunate for apps that could work offline. You can't do a silent push to update data, last I checked, anyway. (Use case: I want a weather app that has current/recent data without loading when I start the app, because I often start the app in dead zones; also I want to have it background fetch the data when my location changes).
You mean slower to write? You're probably right for native Android. But I didn't say anything about development effort. Also it's definitely easier to get polished apps with Flutter than PWAs, so I think they'd still lose on that front.
No, I mean slower to run. It takes way too long for widget objects to be created, and you can only do it on the UI Thread, and you have to make most of your widgets when the app opens (otherwise there's nothing to see).
It was also slower to write for me, but I've never had a good time understanding UI toolkits, so I assume that's my own character flaw.
It was also slower to write for me, but I've never had a good time understanding UI toolkits, so I assume that's my own character flaw.
Erm. There's no way the web is faster than Android's native widgets or Flutter's. Your complaint about the UI thread makes no sense for a start - the web only has a UI thread.
I wish you were right. But for a reasonably simple (in my mind) weather UI, constructing the native Widgets on a cold start takes long enough that you get warnings for too much activity on the UI thread. But you can't build Widgets off the UI thread to get parallelism like you would do for other things that are slow, because Widgets have to be built on the UI thread if you want to show them.
A similar HTML layout shows up a ton faster in Chrome or a webview.
A similar HTML layout shows up a ton faster in Chrome or a webview.
There is no 'free and open web,' that's long in the past now, to the extent it ever existed (for about 10-15 years in a limited form).
Which countries partake in this supposed free and open web? None.
There are dozens of separately regulated prominent webs now and that's going to get a lot worse this decade. We're never going back, nations are not going to give up the control they're assuming, it will splinter further and further; complexity will grow, accessing foreign markets will become more onerous. It'll gradually fully mirror the physical world, where if you want to travel to another nation, or do business in another nation (access their market), you will have to comply with all of their myriad of local regulations (which will continue to grow rapidly in number and complexity).
Nations will fence off their citizens online, and you will have to comply to access them. We're already seeing this directional shift in many nations, it will spread comprehensively.
Turkey's web is not regulated the same as India's web which is not regulated the same as China's web which is not regulated the same as the EU's web which is not regulated the same as Brazil's web which is not regulated the same as Australia's web which is not regulated the same as the US web which is not regulated the same as Britain's web and so on.
Which countries partake in this supposed free and open web? None.
There are dozens of separately regulated prominent webs now and that's going to get a lot worse this decade. We're never going back, nations are not going to give up the control they're assuming, it will splinter further and further; complexity will grow, accessing foreign markets will become more onerous. It'll gradually fully mirror the physical world, where if you want to travel to another nation, or do business in another nation (access their market), you will have to comply with all of their myriad of local regulations (which will continue to grow rapidly in number and complexity).
Nations will fence off their citizens online, and you will have to comply to access them. We're already seeing this directional shift in many nations, it will spread comprehensively.
Turkey's web is not regulated the same as India's web which is not regulated the same as China's web which is not regulated the same as the EU's web which is not regulated the same as Brazil's web which is not regulated the same as Australia's web which is not regulated the same as the US web which is not regulated the same as Britain's web and so on.
OMG the horror of having a billion other choices when you're arbitrarily banned from one.
That’s not the problem, it’s having to manage a bunch of sets of credentials, and the logistics of pushing updates through multiple stores. Both are obviously solvable problems but definitely annoying barriers to someone who really just wants to make their app.
Or more realistically, it means developers will have to start paying for a middle man saas thing that distributes apps in all the stores and aggregates reviews etc.
Or more realistically, it means developers will have to start paying for a middle man saas thing that distributes apps in all the stores and aggregates reviews etc.
You mean that us, developers, will have to choose the right fit between multiple options, in a competitive ecosystem?
That’s exactly what I want!
That’s exactly what I want!
Have you tried publishing apps for the App/Play Store? Last time I made a game with Unity then I had to export it to different platforms and for some of them, such as iOS, then I had to make additional code modifications with xcode to get e.g. ads to work properly. I’d easily end up spending a day on making sure each store listing looked good (required files in different formats, and tons of settings to setup).
I also struggle to think of a scenario in which you wouldn’t want your app published on all app stores (unless you for moral reasons wouldn’t want your app on Chinese-owned stores or something like that).
I also struggle to think of a scenario in which you wouldn’t want your app published on all app stores (unless you for moral reasons wouldn’t want your app on Chinese-owned stores or something like that).
Yes, I do have applications on Android, iOS, macOS.
I want more competition in app stores, I want places where adult applications can be distributed which is completely impossible at the moment. I want app stores that offer different models than what Apple and google do. I want Apple to have to improve their developer experience because of competition (the google play store is way simpler to deal with in my experience). Etc.
And you’re right, it’s a pain to deal with them.
I want more competition in app stores, I want places where adult applications can be distributed which is completely impossible at the moment. I want app stores that offer different models than what Apple and google do. I want Apple to have to improve their developer experience because of competition (the google play store is way simpler to deal with in my experience). Etc.
And you’re right, it’s a pain to deal with them.
I seem to recall a standard XML file for describing apps in stores a couple years ago.
There is a SaaS for that.
That's a bit exaggerated I think , you would get just "One Side Store" Per country or Region.
That would be such a big victory.
Personally I would not complain about the bureaucratic overhead.
That would be such a big victory.
Personally I would not complain about the bureaucratic overhead.
There are 193 countries (footnote[0]), so that might mean 193 app stores, but then some countries might delegate the power to require their own app store to their own regions/"states".
0: https://youtu.be/4AivEQmfPpk
0: https://youtu.be/4AivEQmfPpk
You are used to Apple-style bureaucracy. It won't be even close. If 10 countries roll out their stores - most of them probably won't even be in English for a long time. Custom SDKs will add a lot of overhead on the development side. And app review madness will be like never before.
Something about the government being the supplier feels like a really horrible idea.
i guess there's a right number. I love the idea of having an alternate solution to reach your market whenever you don't want to comply with apple or google guidelines for some reason
This but unironically
It seems most people are arguing that the only alternative to 2 app stores is a large number of app stores. But what if the alternative is no app stores? Anyone can install whatever software they want on their device from wherever they want it. Just like it works for desktops. The need for app stores is an artificially created need (by the marketing brilliance of Jobs).
I would argue that an App Store, on mobile has helped avoid virus, and malware on phones, unlike how Windows was able to contain it. Having a trusted App Store by a company, who understands security, and has a financial backing to commit to a secure system, is beneficial all the way down.
Yeah, an App Store is in no way an artificial need. There’s a reason fortnite is on the Google Play store even when they had the option of only installing through other methods.
For non-savvy users it mostly solves the “evaluating installer maliciousness” problem. For all users it enhances convenience (unified method for installing and uninstalling software) and software discovery. It is not a perfect solution to any of the above problems, but IMO it’s very good.
For non-savvy users it mostly solves the “evaluating installer maliciousness” problem. For all users it enhances convenience (unified method for installing and uninstalling software) and software discovery. It is not a perfect solution to any of the above problems, but IMO it’s very good.
In the absence of Google Play, uninstalling software would be in the same place -> settings / apps / needless tap to see all the apps / the app / uninstall. Installing would be download the apk and open it which works today, although you generally have to set a setting somewhere.
There's certainly a discovery benefit to Google Play, but anybody could build an app discovery site and make an app from that with an embedded browser, open the downloaded apks with the system intent and get the permissions prompt etc. You don't even need the special app management permission if you embrace the system tools that are already there. You would lose automatic updates without that though (but then, a lot of people in India have auto-updates off to conserve bandwidth or storage space).
Google play certainly does some small curation function, but I don't know how useful that is, and you could still have Google Play services running background scans and malware blacklists.
There's certainly a discovery benefit to Google Play, but anybody could build an app discovery site and make an app from that with an embedded browser, open the downloaded apks with the system intent and get the permissions prompt etc. You don't even need the special app management permission if you embrace the system tools that are already there. You would lose automatic updates without that though (but then, a lot of people in India have auto-updates off to conserve bandwidth or storage space).
Google play certainly does some small curation function, but I don't know how useful that is, and you could still have Google Play services running background scans and malware blacklists.
[deleted]
The credit for that mostly goes to the sandboxed nature of the OS itself rather than app store review.
Genuine question: I don’t see how Apple could keep the sandbox system and allow any app to be installed?
The App Store is an app delivery mechanism. The same application sandboxing, API access restrictions etc. can all apply even if they allow sideloading. In fact that's already possible today through their enterprise deployment program.
> by a company who understands security and has a financial backing to commit to a secure system
Not sure if this stands true for the current Indian government.
Not sure if this stands true for the current Indian government.
Pretty sure it doesn't.
I think you might not be aware of how many vulnerabilities iOS has had over the years and still has. Its not the security heaven you and Apple are making it out to be. https://9to5mac.com/2020/05/14/zerodium-has-too-many-ios-exp...
And believe it or not a Store does not have much to do with covering your ass when it comes to malware. There is the same security check on mac regardless where the application comes from (its done at the OS level) The only thing the App Store does is verify the developer because they have to be resisted with Apple (and makes sure Apple gets that 30 cut). Mac already does that btw (you actually cant download an app from an unknown developer by default) unless you choose to in the settings.
And believe it or not a Store does not have much to do with covering your ass when it comes to malware. There is the same security check on mac regardless where the application comes from (its done at the OS level) The only thing the App Store does is verify the developer because they have to be resisted with Apple (and makes sure Apple gets that 30 cut). Mac already does that btw (you actually cant download an app from an unknown developer by default) unless you choose to in the settings.
"Anyone can install whatever software they want on their device from wherever they want it."
This is the current situation on Android. It is similar to macOS or Windows. It comes with a store but users are free to install apps from whatever source they like.
This is the current situation on Android. It is similar to macOS or Windows. It comes with a store but users are free to install apps from whatever source they like.
>But what if the alternative is no app stores? Anyone can install whatever software they want on their device from wherever they want it
There was already an open, accessible, free app store called - 'Internet Browser' upon which Internet was built. These companies undermined it in collusion with the duopolies to hoard more data from their customers and are now crying wolf.
There was already an open, accessible, free app store called - 'Internet Browser' upon which Internet was built. These companies undermined it in collusion with the duopolies to hoard more data from their customers and are now crying wolf.
Do you mean web apps? Today they are powerful, but in 2008 browsers based web apps could not have access to a lot of things native apps could, I think, so native was inevitable, hence the AppStore.
>not have access to a lot of things native apps could
That's my point here -
>in collusion with the duopolies to hoard more data from their customers
That's my point here -
>in collusion with the duopolies to hoard more data from their customers
The real problem with app stores is that selling your software direct to the user is a solved problem. In many casees the e-commerce platform you use to sell your own software
is better than the app stores for the seller (and in many cases the buyer). There really isn't much value until you start bundling the developer tools and libraries. Most of those libraries are derivative or are open source. So developers are trading no real (sorry but Apple's $100 is de minimus) up front costs for a percentage fee paid by the customer at each sale. This is probably optimal for small teams and solo devs...
Modi is a pure marketing person representing JIO and PayTM period, he just wants their spyware to be pre-installed. Nothing more, now if you want proof, watch the down votes. He is the kind of PM who doesn't meet journalists, doesn't take questions. And all he does is Marketing. No execution went atleast good till now.
I have to explain this comment. Because it will look like politically charged content to outsiders. The following is a rough summary of Indian politics from my perspective:
The current leadership has done some fishy marketing tactics for sure. There are swathes of fake news on whatsapp and Facebook which lure unsuspecting citizens into thinking the current leadership is some kind of savior. The local media is mostly silent and doesn't broadcast any news that might affect the savior image of the leadership. These media outlets cognitively manipulate people by pushing uncertain news; eg: "did coward china leave the Ladakh region after Modi's roar?"
Sorry, my English is not very good. But this news is so manipulative when broadcast in the local language.
This combined with aggressive Hindutva identity politics, most naive people of India think Modi is a savior, while they are systematically looting this country. BJP is one of richest parties in the world and no one asked where all the money from de monetization went. Modi has not even called a press meet so far.
It doesn't help that the opposition party is exploited by Nehru family. INC had a great prime minister PV Narasimha Rao, but he was suppressed in the party itself. He is easily the best PM this cursed country has seen after Late Mr. Shastri.
Doesn't help there is a vocal minority of liberal arts graduates which even openly support terrorist forces in an attempt to rail against BJP. They call themselves left or liberals but they are not left. They openly support all kind of dammage from Muslim fundamentalists, and try to defame the long standing tradition of the country. You can see lot of those people on r/india echo chamber. You will be banned for opposing their viewpoints. The effect? You will be called as leftie/liberal/communist/anti-national for just opposing Modi, among your friend circles who are already likely to be manipulated from the fake news based propaganda.
TL; DR This country sucks.
The current leadership has done some fishy marketing tactics for sure. There are swathes of fake news on whatsapp and Facebook which lure unsuspecting citizens into thinking the current leadership is some kind of savior. The local media is mostly silent and doesn't broadcast any news that might affect the savior image of the leadership. These media outlets cognitively manipulate people by pushing uncertain news; eg: "did coward china leave the Ladakh region after Modi's roar?"
Sorry, my English is not very good. But this news is so manipulative when broadcast in the local language.
This combined with aggressive Hindutva identity politics, most naive people of India think Modi is a savior, while they are systematically looting this country. BJP is one of richest parties in the world and no one asked where all the money from de monetization went. Modi has not even called a press meet so far.
It doesn't help that the opposition party is exploited by Nehru family. INC had a great prime minister PV Narasimha Rao, but he was suppressed in the party itself. He is easily the best PM this cursed country has seen after Late Mr. Shastri.
Doesn't help there is a vocal minority of liberal arts graduates which even openly support terrorist forces in an attempt to rail against BJP. They call themselves left or liberals but they are not left. They openly support all kind of dammage from Muslim fundamentalists, and try to defame the long standing tradition of the country. You can see lot of those people on r/india echo chamber. You will be banned for opposing their viewpoints. The effect? You will be called as leftie/liberal/communist/anti-national for just opposing Modi, among your friend circles who are already likely to be manipulated from the fake news based propaganda.
TL; DR This country sucks.
You made some good points and then started making the same points that the extreme Hindutva trolls make - that the students are supporters of muslim fundamentals merely because they ask questions. What is the "long standing tradition" that you are referring to?
I raise my voice against any government policy, suddenly Im told to migrate to Pakistan, Im told I support muslim ideology. Don't believe me?
Tweet or head to any other major subreddit other than r/india, I'm actually glad r/india hates BJP.
I think you’re more or less accurate about the current political situation in the country. The BJP is no good, opposition is incompetent and the faux left liberals provide enough fodder for the country to remain polarized.
[deleted]
Playstore(Google) and Appstore(Apple) are major soft power assets of U.S. Govt. we've seen the former exercised effectively against Huawei, crippling its International smartphone sales.
Considering U.S. - India trade agreement has been elusive for a long time due to differences from fruits to solar cells, India would definitely not add App(Play) store to the list; especially now due to the situation with China.
Although there's nothing stopping anyone from creating 3rd party app store for Android, the lobby wants Govt. to be involved for forcing handset manufacturers to pre-burn this new app store. It's certainly possible, as made in India Samsung M-series phones already has all major Indian apps, they might even provide privilege escalation like Fdroid to make install/update seamless. What they are going to replace Google Play Services with would be interesting to see.
Of course it's not going to happen with Apple unless anti-trust issues in US/EU forces Apple to open its platform for 3rd party app stores.
Coming back to Huawei, Playstore denial didn't have impact on its sales in China as Playstore was never there and China has hundreds of local app stores for android (although silicon denial will have an impact there). Similarly, having local Indian app stores does make strategic sense.
But as a consumer I'm worried about the privacy, security implications of a local app store without common International rules and scrutiny; Especially since I have personally seen what some of these leading apps can do with user privacy and security[1].
[1] https://abishekmuthian.com/paytm-says-to-me-that-its-pos-fea...
Considering U.S. - India trade agreement has been elusive for a long time due to differences from fruits to solar cells, India would definitely not add App(Play) store to the list; especially now due to the situation with China.
Although there's nothing stopping anyone from creating 3rd party app store for Android, the lobby wants Govt. to be involved for forcing handset manufacturers to pre-burn this new app store. It's certainly possible, as made in India Samsung M-series phones already has all major Indian apps, they might even provide privilege escalation like Fdroid to make install/update seamless. What they are going to replace Google Play Services with would be interesting to see.
Of course it's not going to happen with Apple unless anti-trust issues in US/EU forces Apple to open its platform for 3rd party app stores.
Coming back to Huawei, Playstore denial didn't have impact on its sales in China as Playstore was never there and China has hundreds of local app stores for android (although silicon denial will have an impact there). Similarly, having local Indian app stores does make strategic sense.
But as a consumer I'm worried about the privacy, security implications of a local app store without common International rules and scrutiny; Especially since I have personally seen what some of these leading apps can do with user privacy and security[1].
[1] https://abishekmuthian.com/paytm-says-to-me-that-its-pos-fea...
Just about every single app nowadays vacuums data, so as strange it sounds, I'm back to having Apple replace just about everything, even if Apple's version is inferior.
Oh, I need to use a simple todo app. I guess it needs access to my contacts because there's a legitimate feature for that. It also needs access to my calendar because there's a legitimate feature for that. Of course it needs location for location based todos.
Oh, I need to use a simple todo app. I guess it needs access to my contacts because there's a legitimate feature for that. It also needs access to my calendar because there's a legitimate feature for that. Of course it needs location for location based todos.
While I personally dislike to see an App Store coming from the Modi government, I wonder if there's at least some virtue to the idea of publicly funded App Stores e.g. in the European Union.
Of course there's a risk of easier distribution of state-sponsored Malware and censorship - somewhat similar to state-level DPI - but there could be an advantage in enforcing local laws.
As it stands, software distribution to european mobile clients seems to be restricted by:
For Free Software Users, https://f-droid.org/en/ is course preferable. Seems to be registered in the UK according to https://f-droid.org/en/about/
Of course there's a risk of easier distribution of state-sponsored Malware and censorship - somewhat similar to state-level DPI - but there could be an advantage in enforcing local laws.
As it stands, software distribution to european mobile clients seems to be restricted by:
* U.S. laws and regulations
* Policies by Google or Apple
* European laws and regulations
For Free Software Users, https://f-droid.org/en/ is course preferable. Seems to be registered in the UK according to https://f-droid.org/en/about/
F-Droid previously banned Gab for being a “free speech zone” that will “tolerate all opinions”
https://reclaimthenet.org/f-droid-bans-gab-app/
https://reclaimthenet.org/f-droid-bans-gab-app/
F-Droid's press release actually explains their decision not to ban Fedilab even though it allows accessing Gab and they don't like it. https://f-droid.org/en/2019/07/16/statement.html
Their press release says:
> F-Droid is taking a political stance here
I do not want any App Store to be taking political stances.
> F-Droid is taking a political stance here
I do not want any App Store to be taking political stances.
> I do not want any App Store to be taking political stances.
I don't think there is a clean separation between political and non-political when you're choosing whether to accept or deny apps to an app store.
I don't think there is a clean separation between political and non-political when you're choosing whether to accept or deny apps to an app store.
I think you can choose to not deny apps based on political reasons (e.g. BLM) but still choose to deny apps based on security (e.g. malware), deceptiveness (spam, abuse), or license (e.g. closed source).
Free software is a political stance
Free as in free speech. The Gab app does not violate the four essential freedoms [1] or F-Droid's inclusion policy [2]. They even host Hentai apps where you can access lolicon pornography [3] and simply state that users should "be aware of any applicable local laws and regulations".
[1] https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html
[2] https://f-droid.org/en/docs/Inclusion_Policy/
[3] https://f-droid.org/en/packages/moe.feng.nhentai/
[1] https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html
[2] https://f-droid.org/en/docs/Inclusion_Policy/
[3] https://f-droid.org/en/packages/moe.feng.nhentai/
There is, of course. Government build ports, airports, customs etc. This is part of digital infrastructure (until the day comes that stores are no longer needed).
Ok maybe the Indian govt can force Android phone manufacturers to pre install it's app store, how is this going to play out on iPhones? Are we going to see a ban on iPhones in India?
Let's look at some background
1) The issue is that Google is attacking competitors using the App Store as a weapon
Google Pay is one of the biggest payment apps in India
It attacked PayTm, another very big payment app, by making its app disappear
2) So lots of Indian companies are using it as an opportunity to do BOTH
A) Point out Google attacking competitors
B) Google taking 30% cut is unsustainable
*
Now, in INdia Android has 95% market share
So Apple gets a free pass by virtue of being so tiny in India
1) The issue is that Google is attacking competitors using the App Store as a weapon
Google Pay is one of the biggest payment apps in India
It attacked PayTm, another very big payment app, by making its app disappear
2) So lots of Indian companies are using it as an opportunity to do BOTH
A) Point out Google attacking competitors
B) Google taking 30% cut is unsustainable
*
Now, in INdia Android has 95% market share
So Apple gets a free pass by virtue of being so tiny in India
Attacked Paytm?
They have fantasy cricket now which is definitely gambling and my dad is getting spammed with messages that look exactly like scams. I am glad they removed it even if just for a few hours. They didn't comply after being requested to multiple times.
Justifying it as cashback can be used for almost anything in the way they have done.
They have fantasy cricket now which is definitely gambling and my dad is getting spammed with messages that look exactly like scams. I am glad they removed it even if just for a few hours. They didn't comply after being requested to multiple times.
Justifying it as cashback can be used for almost anything in the way they have done.
Yes. This is entirely because PayTM thought it was too big to fail - and Google shut it down anyway.
No 30% is a big deal...
"The government's existing Mobile Seva App Store is expected to be refurbished to create the Indian App Store and all the applications in it, will not be charged for gatekeeping."
This is annoying as shit. Lot of people use Google Pay or Amazon Pay because they are good.
I would love to see India government push for an open iPhone, giving people an option to have their app store if they choose to, and leave people want to stick with Apple AppStore the same as now.
Apple has a history of complying with government requests. They opened up NFC stack when UK requested it. Added SMS spam reporting integration with TRAI in India. And all the changes they do for complying with PRC
The spam integration wasn’t done in the way TRAI was pushing Apple to. On Android, the DND (Do Not Disturb) app could get permissions to the call log and SMS, but this wasn’t possible on iOS. Apple pushed back on that requirement for privacy reasons and instead developed a way for the reporting to be done by the user and the information passed to the DND app to compose (not send) an SMS. No compromises were made to grant any permissions. To this day, the SMS permissions doesn’t exist on iOS.
I am not sure how I feel about the government being directly involved in creating the app store. On one hand, I believe the government should take measures to nurture the local startups and app, to give them a fair chance at growing. On the other hand, I don't think an app store created and managed by the government will have the right incentive to be competitive against foreign players and may just end up spiraling into a hot bureaucratic mess, with more and more hoops to jump through just to get an app on that platform.
> may just end up spiraling into a hot bureaucratic mess
Many publicly traded corporations are not that much different. I am confident that an app-store is not that hard of a task relative to the revenue Google et al are extracting from mit.
If the govt can run a postal service competitively, then I don't see why what is basically a glorified file hosting service + reviews would be impossible.
If anything, I think we need more of these "public options" to compete with walled-garden "platform"/market-making tech companies like Google's play store, Venmo, Uber, etc.
Many publicly traded corporations are not that much different. I am confident that an app-store is not that hard of a task relative to the revenue Google et al are extracting from mit.
If the govt can run a postal service competitively, then I don't see why what is basically a glorified file hosting service + reviews would be impossible.
If anything, I think we need more of these "public options" to compete with walled-garden "platform"/market-making tech companies like Google's play store, Venmo, Uber, etc.
If you want to register a company in India, its a convoluted maze of red tapes. While there have been a lot of improvements, the experience still leaves a lot to be desired (anecdotally). And while the govt postal service is exemplary, its hardly the norm. Yeah it is a glorified hosting service with reviews and I am not worried about the technical capability of the government, I am worried that the 'babu' culture of India will make this simple thing needlessly complicated.
Finally! I can call my uncle and get my app featured. Awesome.
If your uncle works at the right level in Google or Apple I expect this works already.
I have a contrarian view that this is a very good ideas to get rid of the duopoly of Apple and Google App Store.
These companies charge 30% of all sales and in a country like India where margins are low, that can be a huge chunk of profits .
I also believe that there should be a baseline for what apps can come preinstalled on a new phone - because India is a hotbed for low cost Chinese mobiles that are subsidized by the CCP and in turn send all user data to China.
India wants more Apple manufacturing and Apple wants to sell India more phones. My guess is this won't happen.
Right. India is the obvious destination for Apple if/when they decide to get out of their reliance on China.
Is it? Indian and Chinese culture is very different. Apple benefits greatly from China's unquenchable thirst for luxury goods in general, not just phones but clothing, cars, etc. Signalling wealth through conspicuous consumption is important in China. I don't see that same characteristic in Indian culture; of course there is a market for luxury goods but it's not the same.
> I don't see that same characteristic in Indian culture; of course there is a market for luxury goods but it's not the same.
Can it be just because of the difference in disposable income in the countries? I don't know any reliable metric for income but the GDP per capita of PRC is five times that of India. The quench for luxurious goods comes with rising income.
Can it be just because of the difference in disposable income in the countries? I don't know any reliable metric for income but the GDP per capita of PRC is five times that of India. The quench for luxurious goods comes with rising income.
True but apple sells luxury , or premium products. They don’t seem to care for poorer countries
Yes, but China only became rich enough that lots of wealthy young Chinese could be buying iPhones recently. I do not think it would be unreasonable to make the same bet on India being a decade or two behind.
Its not automatic. China took decades of policy and benefited from periods of global growth. India has different politics
" benefited from periods of global growth" -> China had incredible post-2008 growth, that is a large part of why there are so many people buying iPhones.
> India has different politics
What do you mean? It's more inequitable than China and has more political capture by private actors, but I don't see why the same couldn't occur in India.
> India has different politics
What do you mean? It's more inequitable than China and has more political capture by private actors, but I don't see why the same couldn't occur in India.
While it might have been true at one time, this is not true anymore. A lot of their products are at price points that are not luxury.
I think their point was about manufacturing, not consumption.
China would be a good example to predict what would happen. Since it bans Google, there are 11 Android app stores has >1% market share [1], most are from tech giants(e.g. Tencent), mobile operator(e.g. China Mobile) and phone manufacturers(e.g. Huawei). When Apple opens the gate for 3p App Store, it's safe to bet another 5~10 stores.
Maybe not every country will have as many app stores as China, but still that's gonna be a nightmare for developers (especially small developers) to manage.
Push notification might be another nightmare to watch out for consumers. When China bans Google service, app developers have freedom to implement push themselves or via a 3rd party vendor. And I guess if forced to open, Apple won't support non AppStore push either, hence consumers may end up with Facebook/Google/Epic/Tencent/YouNameWho have their push services running and connected on their phones with a burning battery.
[1] https://www.statista.com/statistics/1058612/china-android-ap...
Maybe not every country will have as many app stores as China, but still that's gonna be a nightmare for developers (especially small developers) to manage.
Push notification might be another nightmare to watch out for consumers. When China bans Google service, app developers have freedom to implement push themselves or via a 3rd party vendor. And I guess if forced to open, Apple won't support non AppStore push either, hence consumers may end up with Facebook/Google/Epic/Tencent/YouNameWho have their push services running and connected on their phones with a burning battery.
[1] https://www.statista.com/statistics/1058612/china-android-ap...
I would not trust any state run App Store. In past their “Aarogya Setu” app has been criticized for privacy concerns.
Note that the people who complained about Google’s review policy aren’t indie Developers but big Players like PayTM who benefited immensely from demonetization mandate.
Clearly violating a policy that’s in place to protect the user and then complaining that your app got taken down is ridiculous.
Agree, App Store review process isn’t perfect. There are mistakes in review process which get some apps wrongfully rejected. But I would rather have stricter policies than no/questionable review process.
Another point is specific to this govt. The govt and the PM don’t exactly have a great track record when it comes to minorities, which makes such interference more scary.
Considering what the central government said back in 2017[1]
>"There is no fundamental right to privacy and even if it is assumed as a fundamental right, it is multifaceted. Every facet can’t be ipso facto considered a fundamental right."
This doesn't sound like a good idea to give the control of an app store to the government. Government will for sure try to track and spy on users and remove any app it doesn't like and quality will be a joke.
[1]: https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/right-to-privacy-not-...
This doesn't sound like a good idea to give the control of an app store to the government. Government will for sure try to track and spy on users and remove any app it doesn't like and quality will be a joke.
[1]: https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/right-to-privacy-not-...
It feels like this is just a China firewall in the making.
They will strictly block everything they don’t like. I have a bad feeling about it
They will strictly block everything they don’t like. I have a bad feeling about it
Taking preemptive action to derail their economic recovery.
Those who want open source apps on their phones should checkout f-droid
F-droid is a political app store.
There are no app-stores that are apolitical, that I know of at least. If they are opinionated in setting up barriers of entry for applications, it is a political decision. Even F-Droid choosing to be open-source only, is a political decision.
What business does the govt have with private app stores.
Yes! If there are issues with Apple and Google they could create laws to fix it.
If the idea was to help citizens, laws or regulations to stop said practices would be better, not that I agree with it.
But thats not the idea, they see Google's power and they want in.
Can you imagine thinking a government having all your data is better than a corporation?
People have forgotten the governments were the perpetrators of the worst thing in human history.
No corporation has rounded up people to be shot like governments did.
If the idea was to help citizens, laws or regulations to stop said practices would be better, not that I agree with it.
But thats not the idea, they see Google's power and they want in.
Can you imagine thinking a government having all your data is better than a corporation?
People have forgotten the governments were the perpetrators of the worst thing in human history.
No corporation has rounded up people to be shot like governments did.
Corporations did just that in the specific part of the world under discussion here. I suggest you look into the East India Trading Company, Dutch East India and French East India companies.
I didn't say corporations are all good, but the fact that you had to go back to the 17th century to find an example tells a lot.
Governments have been killing people since their beginning and probably as we speak.
Governments have been killing people since their beginning and probably as we speak.
https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2010/10/the-pause...
As have corporations.
As have corporations.
Sure, i wouldn’t disagree I do think that’s happening now.
governments do that and much worse.
Right now there are people in concentration camps.
I get that corporations can be bad, but they don’t have the monopoly on violence.
To conflate corporation’s violence with governments is a stretch.
It’s funny that people point at corporations being bad, while at the same time defending the worse offender.
I think people can be bad, and having a power form corporations make it worse, but the power government gives to terrible people is much worse.
* edited would with wouldn’t
governments do that and much worse.
Right now there are people in concentration camps.
I get that corporations can be bad, but they don’t have the monopoly on violence.
To conflate corporation’s violence with governments is a stretch.
It’s funny that people point at corporations being bad, while at the same time defending the worse offender.
I think people can be bad, and having a power form corporations make it worse, but the power government gives to terrible people is much worse.
* edited would with wouldn’t
I didn't need to go back to the 17th century but it seemed an appropriate example given the part of the world under discussion.
[deleted]
IT cell must have learned how to inject apps with RATs.
an app store would allow them to inject RAT into every app thus giving them the ability to spy on every indian device
an app store would allow them to inject RAT into every app thus giving them the ability to spy on every indian device
I am glad that this will force a hard stop on Google's and Apple's monopoly on App stores and force them to be more competitive. India is too big a market for Google to walk away from - especially after they had to walk away from China.
However, it is entirely like that the Modi govt is probably trying to find a way to backdoor all phones in India through this. So thats bad.
However, it is entirely like that the Modi govt is probably trying to find a way to backdoor all phones in India through this. So thats bad.
What is their aim by having an alternate app store? Maybe make the manufacturers install it by default as a system app with all the permissions enabled by default? It'd be pretty easy to have a control over what people are seeing or using if so. It's just guess work but I wouldn't be surprised if this is the idea.
It might be because of the following:
"Narendra Modi ‘wants state apps installed’ on new phones"
Source: https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/narendra-modi-wants-state...
> India is said to be considering a plan to make it mandatory for almost all new mobile phones to have government software pre-installed, raising the prospect of the state being able to closely monitor citizens.
"Narendra Modi ‘wants state apps installed’ on new phones"
Source: https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/narendra-modi-wants-state...
> India is said to be considering a plan to make it mandatory for almost all new mobile phones to have government software pre-installed, raising the prospect of the state being able to closely monitor citizens.
[deleted]
> What is their aim by having an alternate app store?
It's mentioned in the article that apps won't be charged for gatekeeping.
It's mentioned in the article that apps won't be charged for gatekeeping.
It will never be easy to control what people use in India. Also if I won't have to pay $25 just to publish my free app to users, I will be much happier. And if I decide to monetize it, I will again perfer to pay Indian govt a cut than others. Google already knows what I think and what I am doing and it fulfills govt requests too, with precise details so it's better that India govt sees it directly. At least I know how I can stop that easily.
You really don't have to control though. Information itself is enough in the most part. As you said, Google already knows, but it has it's own procedure in fulfilling government requests. With the information directly in the hands of the government, that barrier is gone.
I know and that's what I think is better, at least for now. I know how to remove something a govt puts in phone but I can't use a lot of apps without Google Play services, which is a bigger issue for me. You turn on a VPN an govt is out but Google, gosh, it's everywhere.
I'm not sure if "you turn on a VPN and govt is out" is an accurate representation though, considering not all VPNs also resolve DNS requests, and a number of ISPs resort to deep-packet inspection and a number of tactics that would let them collect information on users. It's a matter of agreement, compliance, or force for the government to get their hands on that data.
But I definitely agree on the point about Google Play Services. For a platform that is often touted as being open, Android isn't quite Android without Play Services, and that wouldn't be the case if Google wasn't systematically ensuring that specific outcome.
But I definitely agree on the point about Google Play Services. For a platform that is often touted as being open, Android isn't quite Android without Play Services, and that wouldn't be the case if Google wasn't systematically ensuring that specific outcome.
It’s at least somewhat possible, through open political means, to control what the government does with that information by having the government add regulations and controls on the data. To control what google does with that information, you’d have to spend a trillion dollars to buy google.
I don't understand this logic at all. It's so much more dangerous for a nation state with an army and the ability to disappear dissidents to know so much about you rather than a multinational company...
Although government control will lead to more problems down the line, at least, this has opened serious debate about the unfair control Apple and Google has over the App stores.
Third part app stores should be allowed, and in the end, hopefully, the best one will come out as a winner.
Third part app stores should be allowed, and in the end, hopefully, the best one will come out as a winner.
Anyone aware about the merit of the gambling claims that the apps were indulging in, as mentioned by the article.
While I don't like censorship of any form, if that violates Play Store or AppStore's TOS, the violating app would get removed.
While I don't like censorship of any form, if that violates Play Store or AppStore's TOS, the violating app would get removed.
lol would get removed? This is a fascist govt. They'll ban Google and Apple stores in a whim.
India is a democracy...
Perceived democracy rates in democratic countries have been lower than people expect.
https://daliaresearch.com/blog/democracy-perception-index-20...
https://daliaresearch.com/blog/democracy-perception-index-20...
Democracies can vote fascists into power.
To outsiders, it's a democracy because they've been told that.
To Modi bhakts it's a democracy because they are in power.
To regular people, it's very clear it's a democracy like Russia is a democracy. The govt pays large amounts of people to misinform the populace online. The government uses martial law to impose Internet lockdown for over a year on any citizens who resist govt's crimes against them. There's no free press (check press freedom indices), without which democracy is in name only.
To Modi bhakts it's a democracy because they are in power.
To regular people, it's very clear it's a democracy like Russia is a democracy. The govt pays large amounts of people to misinform the populace online. The government uses martial law to impose Internet lockdown for over a year on any citizens who resist govt's crimes against them. There's no free press (check press freedom indices), without which democracy is in name only.
While I agree with parts of your comment, I don't think it is honest.
> The govt pays large amounts of people to misinform the populace online.
Are they using state apparatus to do that? Isn't this true in most parts of world now. The whole Brexit campaign was fueled by misinformation.
> There's no free press (check press freedom indices), without which democracy is in name only.
I have read a lot of outlets from India which are anti establishment. Though I definitely think the press freedoms are nowhere at the level of some countries.
> The government uses martial law to impose Internet lockdown for over a year on any citizens who resist govt's crimes against them.
I think this refers to Kashmir. While I don't support the restriction and definitely heavy handed and it wouldn't have been possible in say a country like US now. I think you are triviliazing the situation when you think all the "resistance" is against government crimes.
> The govt pays large amounts of people to misinform the populace online.
Are they using state apparatus to do that? Isn't this true in most parts of world now. The whole Brexit campaign was fueled by misinformation.
> There's no free press (check press freedom indices), without which democracy is in name only.
I have read a lot of outlets from India which are anti establishment. Though I definitely think the press freedoms are nowhere at the level of some countries.
> The government uses martial law to impose Internet lockdown for over a year on any citizens who resist govt's crimes against them.
I think this refers to Kashmir. While I don't support the restriction and definitely heavy handed and it wouldn't have been possible in say a country like US now. I think you are triviliazing the situation when you think all the "resistance" is against government crimes.
> Also, talks within the government indicate that it may ask Google and Apple to pre-install Indian App Store in all phones sold in India in near future. This particular request is likely to face counter from the American companies.
Sigh!
Sigh!
Other than the Pixel line I don't know why we'd expect Google to block this. There's already alternative app stores preloaded on many Android phones. To my mind this will be a fight against Apple
The pixel line is the only line Google preinstalls anything on. Either the journalist or the negotiator doesn't understand Android or is pushing harder than they need to, or they see sideloading (bad UX) as not sufficient as an antitrust measure.
Well, Google could made it via licensing.
When OEMs install Google service and other apps required to install Play store, they need a license from Google.
Look at custom ROMs not bundling Gapps (Google apps) because they do not have the license from Google to pre-install and ask you to install from open gapps.
When OEMs install Google service and other apps required to install Play store, they need a license from Google.
Look at custom ROMs not bundling Gapps (Google apps) because they do not have the license from Google to pre-install and ask you to install from open gapps.
Being surveiled by Google, Apple and Facebook (America), and soon in greater effect by the Indian state isn't exactly appealing, but at least it means competition I guess.
Honestly, what alternative exists? Corporations won't be OK with publishing on F-Droid, but is there some kind of opensource store that can be used for commercial apps? If some people put their heads together, maybe they could come up with something opensource that respects privacy, is secure and allows closed-source stuff to be published.
Honestly, what alternative exists? Corporations won't be OK with publishing on F-Droid, but is there some kind of opensource store that can be used for commercial apps? If some people put their heads together, maybe they could come up with something opensource that respects privacy, is secure and allows closed-source stuff to be published.
LOL. We don’t need 30%. We’ll pay for it through taxes instead.
What's wrong with Getjar for Android? [0] Although I think it needs a redesign but at least it has no Google control and it is independent.
iOS on the other hand is slightly difficult to sideload apps compared to Android. Not too optimistic about an alternative App Store on iOS.
[0] https://www.getjar.com/
iOS on the other hand is slightly difficult to sideload apps compared to Android. Not too optimistic about an alternative App Store on iOS.
[0] https://www.getjar.com/
GetJar isn't controlled by the Indian government, so it's not useful for the Indian government.
I had a hard time finding an app between that crazy amount of ads.
From all the blank spaces in my browser I imagine there must be a lot of ads.. ;)
> it is independent
From the perspective of the Indian government that is exactly what is wrong with Getjar.
From the perspective of the Indian government that is exactly what is wrong with Getjar.
I feel like india needs to sort out abject poverty, lack of sanitation and rampant discrimination before moving on to government mandated spy apps. This is yet another example of that country’s government giving the impression of a democracy working for the greater good when tens of millions of people suffer. Pretty disgusting.
I am happy with this decision. There should be alternative to these stores. Let people decide which store to choose. Looting devs for 30% income is bad decision.
Also recently Google banned few Indian apps. The way I see it, Indian govt wants to make sure, essential apps are in their control, not in private companies'.
Also recently Google banned few Indian apps. The way I see it, Indian govt wants to make sure, essential apps are in their control, not in private companies'.
Why, in the firsts place, is Apple allowed to have a monopoly on something the user already paid for? I think the law should address this question, as clearly the current practice is not in favor of the customer nor the market.
What are the efforts at other important levels? Silicon? Operating systems? Next generation architectures? Where is the leverage without being independent at the hardware level? Look what has happened to BSNL with 4G...
Interesting.
Suppose Epic wins its case against Apple and judges force alternative app stores, I wonder if that would mean tmobile, at&t, et al. would all then be allowed to install their app store with adware into iPhones...
Suppose Epic wins its case against Apple and judges force alternative app stores, I wonder if that would mean tmobile, at&t, et al. would all then be allowed to install their app store with adware into iPhones...
Government run app store would just be a wedge to bring Jio app store in.
Reliance will become like one of those chaebol companies in Korea, pervasive in every Indian’s life with little to no other options.
Reliance will become like one of those chaebol companies in Korea, pervasive in every Indian’s life with little to no other options.
What is stopping the government from simply banning single monopoly app store and forcing Google to allow installation of multiple private app stores?
Why does it have to be a government app store?
Why does it have to be a government app store?
Because the saner option has lesser PR value
What are the efforts at other important levels? Silicon? Operating systems? Next gen architectures? Where is the leverage without independence in those?
Here is a more readable link for the same:
https://outline.com/4CbwN4
https://outline.com/4CbwN4
So we should trust a state to have an app store on our phones? Thanks, but no thanks.
I'd rather not even have any state app instead.
I'd rather not even have any state app instead.
The article states that the Apple App store has 2% of the market, isn't that too little to bother about?
I'm sure that this will get buried or ignored as usual, but I find it very strange that no one evens discusses the possibility of using decentralized technologies to create public marketplaces in cases such as this.
This seems to be a good opportunity for cryptocurrency and something like a distributed database or content-oriented networking with indexing. Such as for example Ether and OrbitDB.
This seems to be a good opportunity for cryptocurrency and something like a distributed database or content-oriented networking with indexing. Such as for example Ether and OrbitDB.
I don't like a government owned & controlled app store any better than the current status quo.
Anything the government manages will become a complete shit show. I have no hopes for this.
"reportedly planning"
How can we be sure that this app store won't charge any charges or commission?
How will the Indian govt. enforce an alternative app store? Will Apple bow down?
I don't think Apple allows other app stores on their platform.
So much for Apple moving their manufacturing to India.
Good luck with Apple
bad idea. indian companies haven't shown any competence or compassion in this space.
if they force Apple to pre-install appstore on phones? say bye-bye to $10 B manufacturing dream.
Having local controls and slightly stricter rules is good! But these chinese-commie style is bad!
if they force Apple to pre-install appstore on phones? say bye-bye to $10 B manufacturing dream.
Having local controls and slightly stricter rules is good! But these chinese-commie style is bad!
No government on Earth could run an App store.
Unless they mean force sellers to change defaults and dump on f-droid or something it's embarrassing they think they can.
Unless they mean force sellers to change defaults and dump on f-droid or something it's embarrassing they think they can.
logicOnly(6)
It's a good start, but doesn't go far enough. India should also temporarily ban google, facebook, microsoft, apple, intel, etc until their local software companies are strong enough to compete. India, like china, is sufficiently large and important enough to create their own tech ecosystem. But given their track record, I really don't have much confidence in india to get it right. Hope I am wrong though as the world needs genuine competition the tech space.
Now maybe the EU should get their act together? The EU was able to create airbus to compete with boeing, why can't they do the same for their own version of microsoft, google, apple, facebook, etc? They are certainly wealthy enough and given their large population, they certainly could produce the talent to drive such an initiative.
If the EU thinks their private sector is going to compete against state-backed corporations like google, facebook, microsoft, apple, intel, etc, then they really have drunk the kool-aid. The EU's private sector can no more create a competitor to these tech giants as it could have created an aerospace company to compete with boeing. These companies are fundamentally "private" state companies.
If india, EU, etc succeed, then perhaps ASEAN, Africa, etc will follow their examples and create their tech ecosystem within their economic bloc.
Now maybe the EU should get their act together? The EU was able to create airbus to compete with boeing, why can't they do the same for their own version of microsoft, google, apple, facebook, etc? They are certainly wealthy enough and given their large population, they certainly could produce the talent to drive such an initiative.
If the EU thinks their private sector is going to compete against state-backed corporations like google, facebook, microsoft, apple, intel, etc, then they really have drunk the kool-aid. The EU's private sector can no more create a competitor to these tech giants as it could have created an aerospace company to compete with boeing. These companies are fundamentally "private" state companies.
If india, EU, etc succeed, then perhaps ASEAN, Africa, etc will follow their examples and create their tech ecosystem within their economic bloc.
I wonder how's that going to go
>>>>Also, talks within the government indicate that it may ask Google and Apple to pre-install Indian App Store in all phones sold in India in near future. This particular request is likely to face counter from the American companies.
<<<<<<
THIS is the only time, I am more inclined to side with Chinese style of control. Sovereign nation out to decide what is good for their people. India is a chaotic democracy, but a function one. I will rather support my government's way of ensuring "Privacy and Security" than Apple's. We do have equally capable people over here. Slowly but surely, things move in positive direction. No need of dictation by any foreign multi-national.
The way Google banned PayTM for few hours, until they removed some of the features from the App, come-on, Indian Laws are good enough to decide what is legal / correct / etc. etc. This was a very visible case of an American company imposing "Their Policy" on things which only court / government should get to decide.
I am mostly IN with this proposal.
EDIT: I guess I used harsh words, but something definitely needs to be done with the current duopoly.
THIS is the only time, I am more inclined to side with Chinese style of control. Sovereign nation out to decide what is good for their people. India is a chaotic democracy, but a function one. I will rather support my government's way of ensuring "Privacy and Security" than Apple's. We do have equally capable people over here. Slowly but surely, things move in positive direction. No need of dictation by any foreign multi-national.
The way Google banned PayTM for few hours, until they removed some of the features from the App, come-on, Indian Laws are good enough to decide what is legal / correct / etc. etc. This was a very visible case of an American company imposing "Their Policy" on things which only court / government should get to decide.
I am mostly IN with this proposal.
EDIT: I guess I used harsh words, but something definitely needs to be done with the current duopoly.
If you think I’m being hyperbolic, just wait for Reliance Jio to announce its own App Store as the first one. It’ll come with the full force of the government behind it (who in a government wouldn’t love a telecom and network provider that loves slurping all data and is against end to end encryption when it’s done by other competing apps like WhatsApp?)
I feel bad for all the poorer people who already are forced to buy cheap Android phones that don’t get updates and are loaded with crapware and what not. As much as I despise Google for tracking users, I believe Google will look like a saint in front of these companies.