> Same for me, I don’t want 5 blasted stores on my iPhone. I want one store and run by someone I trust.

The individual stores thing is actually really annoying. If you play games on Windows you're familiar with this situation. They all want to run 24/7 and cram their UI in your face at every opportunity, and you just want to play that publisher's one game. They are trying to become chat apps, and web browsers, and it's just crazy. I think my computer will explode if it sees one more web page wrapped in a "start at login" script claiming to be an "app store" or "game launcher". (Why can't these things just let me "chocolatey install" them? I know how to keep Windows apps up to date. Just accept my credit card number from inside the app. Or, horrors, a web page.)

On Windows, the underlying cause of this is "because we can". Everyone that wants a game will install an app store to get it from without thinking, because the one Microsoft offers is too limited. (They don't use Steam because it's run by a direct competitor, and Steam games kind of have that feeling like there are 3 good games in there next to 100,000,000 "I downloaded Unity this weekend, give me money!" games.)

Where I'm going with this rant is that unlimited freedom is the worst form of app distribution -- except for all the others. (I guess I have zero qualms with "go get". It works 100% of the time. Apps can't explode files all over my computer. Google provides a CDN for free.)

It sounds like the real complaint is “the store needs to be running to use software I purchased from it.”

Which is much worse than the mobile environment. But you could still have more choice and not require the store to be running to use.

Imagine being able to go to epic games website and click “download game” and get a phone pop up “do you want to install X?”

There’s positively no need for a “store” at all.

This. So much this. It kills me that people are no longer familiar with simply buying and downloading games.

GOG and Humble Bundle work like this on Linux (though GOG has an optional Galaxy app). You login to a website, buy and download.

Humble Bundle works like this on Android too. You just need to enable apps from unknown sources.

You could do that if Epic wanted you to be able to do that. Nothing on Android prevents it; in fact, that's how you install the Epic Game Store: you go to their website and download an APK. You'll have to click through some permission screens, and then you're done: the APK is installed on your phone and can be launched like any normal app, no Play store required.

Epic chooses not to do that, because they want you to run their store. But Google doesn't prevent you from doing it; Epic just chooses not to allow you to.

I'm pretty sure fortnite's inclusion in the play store is relatively recent. For a while it was available only as a sideloaded so on Android devices.

(No pass for the racueteering play store/app store implied)

Yep, this is basically a complaint about DRM. Do apps typically have their own DRM setups or are they using software baked into the play store?

They could do DRM and all the other store stuff by linking against publisher-provided DLL. This is about an upsell opportunity - the store is there to ensure their offers are in your face whenever you want to play.

I agree 100%, although I will give Steam some credit: when it launched it was universally maligned, but with enough work it became probably the digital storefront people are most loyal to, and for some justifiable reasons; and it passes the most important test: many prefer it to piracy.

Go get is weird. I guess it’s still federated even with GOPROXY as a middleman, but I am still not sure how I feel about all of it. It makes sense from the perspective of ensuring things don’t maliciously break, but it feels less obvious what it’s doing than I’d hope, and that probably makes many uneasy.

There is GOG Galaxy[0], that is trying to gather all your games from different platforms in one place. However all platforms (except Steam) constantly disconnects from the Galaxy which is really annoying. I understand there can be a lot of reasons for this. But I like to think that those emerging platforms simply do not want being accessed from the Galaxy. For this reason I prefer buying games from GOG and Steam when possible.

Also, to install games from those 3rd party platforms one still needs to install and launch those platforms. So this limits usefulness of the Galaxy.

[0]: https://www.gog.com/galaxy

If there's one thing I don't understand about other PC gamers, it's why any of them want to use these stores in the first place.

Whenever possible, I buy from GoG, but not because I want to use Galaxy. With GoG, I just download an exe, run the installer, and my game appears in this wonderful launcher called The Freaking Start Menu. It's great.

What do I get from using a client? I don't want my games to be integrated into a social network, I just want to play them, and not be interrupted until I'm done.

------

My second choice after GoG is usually itch.io, but my third choice is actually becoming EGS. I'm not sure if this was intentional, but a significant portion (maybe even a majority?) of EGS games don't actually need EGS to run. You can download them with an open-source tool like https://github.com/derrod/legendary, back up the files, and run them. I've personally done this with Journey, Beyond Two Souls, Control, and Detroit.

A handful of Steam games allow this too (one recent example is Ori and the Will of the Wisps), but it's much less common than on the Epic Store!

For me, most everything is run through Steam. Steam games, games from GoG/EGS/Origin/GamePass, emulators, all that.

Big picture mode, controller mapping, remote play, and remote play together are amazing.

Not sure what's so hard to understand. You mention downloading, installing, and revel that it's in your start menu. And don't mention updating. With launchers, there's one less step (installing), and updating is a passive thing (for better or worse). And yup, they're placed in the start menu as well.

Big Steam user here and I agree with you on the updates thing. However this aspect has more or less value depending on what you play and when.

Single player games purchased a year after release likely never need to be patched ever again.

Unfortunately AAA games with multiplayer et al seem to need to be patch immediately upon release...

For me the main reason has been the Linux support in Steam. If they later add a Linux port, you don't have to buy it again, just go install it on Linux.

Their work with the Proton compatibility is bringing a lot of my old Windows only games to Linux too. I'll probably continue buying exclusively from Steam for this reason.

> What do I get from using a client?

Recently I've started using OS search to launch apps on my Ubuntu workstation. One day I've tried the same with game launched. When you have extensive libraries on multiple platforms it definitely helps.

Also some clients support achievements. It adds incentives (or meaning, if you will) to play some good game even after completion of campaign or something like that. Yep, not for everyone.

BTW, you can download and install games from Steam using official console client [0]. Not sure if will allow to play [all] games, though. I had limited experience with that. I managed to download windows versions of doom and quake 2 for Oculus Quest from Ubuntu.

[0] https://developer.valvesoftware.com/wiki/SteamCMD

> BTW, you can download and install games from Steam using official console client [0]. Not sure if will allow to play [all] games, though. I had limited experience with that.

Yeah, SteamCMD can download but usually not run games—my experience is the only games that run are the handful that can run without Steam in general.

Key reasons I use steam: 1. My payment information is there 2. Updates happen automatically in the background 3. I can stream games from my pc to laptops 4. I can uninstall and reinstall later without having to try to figure out where to re-download the game from

I don't have problems with disconnections on Galaxy, the only probem is that you still need the third-party stores at all on your computer.

Maybe the real reason of disconnects in my case is that I log in once a week or even less often.

It's just like technology standards.

https://xkcd.com/927/

Sometimes it looks like this. But in some sense unlike this new "standard" previous 14 standards don't really cover "all use cases".

Only the app from GOG shows games from other platforms, that's why I prefer to launch everything from there because when I launch my windows rig on weekends no chance I remember where I bought that game.

> “ If you play games on Windows you're familiar with this situation. They all want to run 24/7 and cram their UI in your face at every opportunity, and you just want to play that publisher's one game.”

Yes, thank you! In fact Epic is one of the worst of these stupid stores about blasting you with corner-of-screen advertising even when you’re doing nothing with it.

> They don't use Steam because it's run by a direct competitor

Not sure about this. Does valve even make games anymore? /s

Not really, but their store competes with Epic's one :D

This is completely false. The Play Store has "won" by Google chopping the legs off all the alternatives. They have to be sideloaded and you have to enable a scary checkbox to do so, that suggests it's less secure to use any app store but the Play Store.

> that suggests it's less secure to use any app store but the Play Store.

The suggestion is usually correct, though. Google does a terrible job of vetting Play Store apps, but they do still have some automated safety checks, and they kick out known malware once it's found.

If you allow sideloading, you give up all of that. It's still perfectly safe if you trust what you install, but you have to make that assessment. Google can't save you.

This is exactly how I wish iOS worked. It's also basically how the Mac works nowadays, except replace "App Store" with "Apple notary service."

How would you suggest Google correctly communicate the risk?

Installing an app from F-Droid is drastically safer than installing an app from the Play Store though.

Could it be because a niche is not such an interesting attack vector?

Maybe a little, but more importantly, all apps on F-Droid are open source, and verifibly built from said source. It's very hard to hide malicious activity on it, whereas duping the Play Store content moderators is like taking candy from a baby.

For a small apps there's nothing checking against intentional malicious activity. Sure it'd be there in plain sight, but it's pretty unlikely really that anyone would read the source code of some random single person project.

Google doesn't know whether you're installing F-Droid or Totally-Free-Money.apk.

And also third party app stores (e.g. F-droid) can't autoupdate the apps for "security" reasons. One can only circumvent this by flashing a patch via phone recovery... which is fairly tedious and scary even for a tecnhical person, let alone regular users.

Wait, this is news to me! What aspect of Android is making autoupdates impossible? Apps can replace their contents, and apps can run in the background... shouldn't that be all you need?

Android requires users to go through the explicit install and upgrade screen to upgrade apps outside of the Play Store. That means that F-Droid can't upgrade applications in the background, nor can they be upgraded automatically. Batch installs are also disabled for third party app stores.

But isn't an app fundamentally just a collection of files? What is stopping F-Droid from replacing those files? Are executable bits special or something?

Android apps are heavily containerized, so unless you gave the app a filesystem permission, it can't write to it. By default they can only use their 'own' data storage (which is represented as /data/data/$APPNAME on the filesystem).

But even if you allow filesystem access, it's only for 'non-system' partitions (e.g. sdcard). Unless you rooted your phone (also a pretty tedious operation with a potential to brick the phone), normal apps can't even read files on the system partition, let alone overwrite them, except their 'own' data.

This is good from the security point, e.g. you can run pretty much any app and simply remove it if you feel like it's suspicious and asking for too many permissions. Similar to running a random Docker image: you can try out software without taking risks of losing control over your system, allowing certain capabilities if necessary (e.g. ports, paths). There might be a Docker vulnerability of course, but it's pretty unlikely for you as an individual to be targeted by it.

But it's extremely frustrating when you know what are you doing and which risks you are willing to take, but have to jump through hoops to do things that are otherwise trivial on desktop.

I've reread your comments, and realized I might have answered a different question in my comment before :)

In theory, you could request broad permissions, and have an interpreter sitting inside your app, dynamically loading its own code over the wire, so you'll never have to update from the app store (unless you want more permissions granted). But as far as I understand, this is forbidden by the Play Store policies (e.g. Facebook got told off for doing this https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2013/04/googl... ). Although I'd imagine it's easy to slip such code past reviewers, unless your app is very popular and worthy a more thorough review that can catch it.

Also I'd imagine there is some grey area there, e.g. your whole app could be a webview simply displaying web frontend -- surely it's okay to dynamically load javascript? Not sure how the policy works in such cases.

Look into the Android security model, it's more complicated than vanilla Linux where you can just log in as root and fiddle with files if you want to get something done.

Fdroid pops up and ask to update apps. It's very easy.

I don't find it easy to have to individually upgrade each app because Google decided that third part app stores are not allowed to batch upgrade in the background.

Not as easy as autoupdating, and far more annoying for the general user.

My Firefox mobile was updated during the night and changed the UI completely, moving the bar to the bottom etc and it is just all bad. I see not having auto updates as a feature. Mostly it is just annoying changes and I prefer to know when updates happens so I can track things that break and blame the update.

Plenty of handset makers to this day preinstall their own app stores, including the biggest and most successful, Samsung.

Related: I often find item bundles cheaper if I buy them via the Samsung Galaxy Store (10% cheaper). Is it because Samsung doesn't have keep 30% of the money, but a lower amount?

Yeah? you think users love hunting down a particular app store becauase that is the one that has the app you are after???

> Yeah? you think users love hunting down a particular app store becauase that is the one that has the app you are after???

I switch between streaming services based on the content they have. I have Steam, Epic Store and Origin on my PC because of the games and deals each have. Why would I not load a new app store (if I used my phone for anything other than a phone, camera and note-taking device)?

If only there was an example of a platform where you downloaded apps from the web and installed them at your own will!

Oh, wait. It’s what we all did and do with computers. This isn’t some mystical unknown.

In 2006-ish—before the iPhone and its App Store—preteen me decided to replace Windows with Xubuntu on his hand-me-down computer.

The feature I recall liking most was the integrated software center. When I wanted an app, I just had to search the center, not comb through random websites. It was nice.

Of course, I could and did also install programs from random websites, as I saw fit. It never occurred to me that some day, I'd be forced to rely entirely on a built-in store...

And we see how that worked out. Viruses, malware, ransomware, key loggers, 10 toolbars on your browser.

Which is where the (existing, robust) system of app permissions comes in. Something the desktop world never had.

(besides, last time I checked my macOS machine is neither virus ridden nor covered in toolbars)

Your Mac isn’t ridden with that, because you’re a user that knows that you’re doing. I see “regular users whose Macs are riddled with MacKeeper and other garbage all the time

Because no one bothered to write viruses for it. There were more viruses for Windows than Classic MacOS and it was a complete shit show compared to Windows between 1995 - 2000. It didn’t even have memory protection.

I’m talking about the macOS I run on my MacBook today. It is not virus ridden nor covered with unwanted toolbars.

And again it’s because no one bothered to write toolbars and viruses for the Mac. I never got viruses on a Windows PC but are you going to say they don’t exist? You never had to clean up your less tech savvy relatives computer?

What I’m saying is that the vast, vast majority of desktop users have an entirely satisfactory computing experience today, using operating systems that let you install whatever you want.

Yes, if you go back in time you find OSes with hideous security models that made things like keyloggers possible. Mobile OSes today do not have those problems, and have strict permission prompts that gatekeep functionality.

Yeah, I’m sure there would be some shitty experiences if people could install whatever they want on their phones, it’s the price of giving everyone that freedom. But if desktop OSes in 2020 are anything to go by, it’s really not that big of an issue.

So the whole ransomware and virus problem is imaginary?

>They have to be sideloaded and you have to enable a scary checkbox to do so

And windows has a scary sounding checkbox when you download an .exe from the internet. So what? In the old days, it never warned you, and people were CONSTANTLY getting malware by downloading random stuff from sketchy sites.

Majority of Android phones shipped in last years were built by Samsung and Huawei which both ship their own app store by default. Your claim doesn't match the reality.

Of course they have to put a scary checkbox, otherwise they would be held liable for any sketchy app that is actually malware people accidentally downloaded. And I guarantee if the checkbox wasn’t there, you would be complaining that there aren’t enough safeguards to keep people safe. I can’t even stand Google, but come on.

> Of course they have to put a scary checkbox, otherwise they would be held liable for any sketchy app that is actually malware people accidentally downloaded.

What do you mean by "held liable"? It can't be in the legal sense, because Microsoft has never been held legally liable for Windows malware, and Apple has never been held legally liable for Mac malware.

Held liable just like this:

"In 2014 the US Federal Trade Commission ordered Apple to pay out $32.3m (£24.6m) to reimburse American parents for unauthorised app purchases made by their children."[0]

https://www.theguardian.com/money/2020/mar/11/my-kids-spent-...

This is the complete opposite of holding Apple liable for sideloaded apps. Apple was a direct party to these transactions.

If Apple isn't the payment processor, they're off the hook.

Please, in what way is Apple liable for this other than the fact they need to hold someone accountable for the damages? You really can’t imagine this taking place for malware that compromises payment information? They may not be ordered to pay but the headlines would read the same and the negative PR is worth way more than a few million.

But again, Mac malware exists, Windows malware exists. Yet "sideloading" is still much easier on those platforms than on Android. So obviously this kind of "liability", i.e., bad PR, doesn't and hasn't required the same implementation, and certainly doesn't force them to make the platforms App Store only.

> And I guarantee if the checkbox wasn’t there, you would be complaining that there aren’t enough safeguards to keep people safe.

I hope what you mean is that someone else would be making the argument that the checkbox is necessary: claiming a crowd of people are a single inconsistent argument is disingenuous.

But the opposing crowd exists and maybe you personally don't have to deal with it but these companies do. Apple and Google deal with billions of ordinary people, not just tech nerds.

No, there is no reason for them to do that. Microsoft has proven otherwise over their entire existence.

Microsoft also has a "scary checkbox", in the form of "are you sure you want to run this exe that came from the Internet?" popup.

It very well may be less secure. This is no different than warning boxes popping up on Windows/MacOS cautioning running executables downloaded from untrusted sources.

Right because why would Google think it needs to warn people about the dangers imposed by installing an app outside of the Google Play store by a well known developer like Epic?

https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2018/08/fortnites-android-vu...

Good! Apple may ask for a bit too much with the 30 percent but still doesn’t give Epic the right to try and do things on their own. Judging on their little trailer they released shortly after getting removed, they new this was going to happen. A company that makes so much money should be able to compromise.

> A company that makes so much money should be able to compromise.

It's hilarious to see people rooting for Apple as if they're the little guys.

The company that makes so much money here is Apple, not Epic. They should be willing to compromise. They gouge app developers and in turn its end users by charging a 30% ransom.

How many app developers feel they are getting gouged? I’m an iOS developer and don’t feel that way? Is it when you get big and greedy?

The irony of calling an app developer "big and greedy" in face of Apple is not lost on me here.

30% in pure profit would means a lot to regular companies/folks as well, not just the "big and greedy" ones. Just because you don't feel the pain doesn't mean other ones do.

And ultimately, some of this cost is burdened by the end user purchasing the app which is obviously harmful to everyday users such as myself.

Exactly, this entire thing is about big intermediaries getting a piece of the pie through the legal system.

Smaller developers will be the casualties of a multi-store situation because they will be forced to support the them all.

There will therefore be no competitive pressure on benefits for developers.

This is all about more middlemen making money.

How do you rationalize this? There's no situation where having a legitimate competitor to the App Store makes the situation somehow worse for smaller developers.

At worst, they continue their business as usual. At best the competitive pressure allows their business to stay the same but with higher margins. Most likely they would eke out a bit more money than the status quo by using another App Store competitor alongside the App Store if they choose to do so.

I'm not aware of another industry that puts up with 30% fees on all the products that they sell. GrubHub et al are notorious in the restaurant industry for their 30% cuts on orders, and owners are doing everything they can to eliminate those companies from the picture.

Artists, on the other hand, only have to deal with a 10% to 15% cut when they sell their music digitally or physically through Bandcamp.

I'm a small and modest developer, and I feel like 30% and $99/year is too much. Mind you, Apple is a trillion dollar company that will take a 30% cut whether you're a worker in the 3rd world or a kid in college. I'm not sure I follow your "big and greedy" rhetoric at all here.

The problem is that Apple has consistently demonstrated that "compromise" means "accept Apple's terms without any wiggle room for negotiation".

It completely gives them the right to do it on their own. They are free to take their business elsewhere, or start their own mobile platform.

As things currently stand this is unarguably true.

The next question is though, given the incentives in place are entirely due to Apple, is that anti-competitive?

I think it is. It is also ruthless smart business to make money. Given societies rules about "make money" for corporations I can't blame them.

But I am allowed to wish it were otherwise.

The scary check box exists for a reason. The reason malware isn't everywhere on android and iOS is because randomly installing apps isn't unsafe. I mean sans play store's automatic tools occasionally letting nonsense through.

A large part of the security model on both systems is the ability to constrain what apps can do, and by ensuring those have happened.

The various privileged (in the security sense) sandbox entitlements on iOS can't be used by a malicious app because the malicious app can't get through the App Store. That significantly increases the bar for any malware. I assume the Google Play store similarly limits access to privileged system features, and I would fully expect the 3rd party stores do not.

Also personally: The Epic store is a terrible app, and signing up for it requires providing vastly more information to them than I ever wanted to, especially for only a single company's games, from a company that has no stated intent of reducing data collection and improving privacy. A company that also engages in scummy tactics like loot boxes, virtual currency, etc

> The reason malware isn't everywhere on android and iOS is because randomly installing apps isn't unsafe.

What about macOS?

It is perennially being targeted by malware :)

> Android has a plethora of app stores, there have always been tons of them.

Google put restrictions on Android so that third party app stores can't install in the background, auto-upgrade or batch install.

> Google Play Store won out on Android simply because the multitude of stores was a nightmare for customers.

The Play Store is the only app store on Android where users can install apps in the background, auto-upgrade apps or batch install apps.

The reason the Play Store won out on Android is because it the only app store that Google allows to have the features app stores require.

Just maybe because of things like this?

https://www.cnet.com/news/just-as-critics-feared-fortnite-fo...

Perhaps people want the ability to choose between fully featured app stores, because of things like these

https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2020/01/resea...

https://blog.trendmicro.com/trendlabs-security-intelligence/...

https://www.techrepublic.com/article/new-android-bug-targets...

https://www.zdnet.com/article/popular-apps-on-google-play-li...

So either use Google’s insecure App Store, use someone else’s insecure app that’s sideloaded or by an iPhone. I think you just made a good pro-Apple argument.

iOS exploits are cheaper than Android exploits because iOS exploits are so plentiful.

Aren't most of those 0-days exploiting iOS integrated apps and thus outside the realm of App Store curation and policy?

Asking because that's the impression I get, but may be wrong.

Citations?

You can easily Google this.

https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2019/09/for-t...

https://www.securityweek.com/zerodium-expects-ios-exploit-pr...

https://www.forbes.com/sites/jeanbaptiste/2019/09/04/why-zer...

None of which have anything to do with the App Store....

I'm really interested in a Debian-quality DFSG Android app store. Debian's apt repository is truly the "app store" that I have chosen to trust.

Same for me; Debian's apt repo is my computer "app store" of choice.

On Android, the F-droid app store (https://f-droid.org/) comes closest but it has nowhere near the breadth of the Debian repos.

Wasn't the old Nokia Maemo OS based on Debian? I seem to remember being able to `apt-get install` things in the terminal on my N770 (or whatever the model was) tablet.

Yes, and it was glorious. I keep one running for fun, and there are people still working with whatever Maemo transformed into.

For the record Maemo spawned among other things Sailfish OS (running on my dakly smartphone) and many current mobile Linux distro projects can trace their lineage to Maemo on the Nokia N-series.

Yep, and I think a few Meego derivatives might still be out there, as well. Also, Maemo was revived as Maemo Leste for platforms like the Pinephone, although I'm not sure how active the project is.

Yes.

I can understand that having multiple store can be frustrating for the user, but why not have multiple stores with federation? You have one app implementing the federated store protocol, and you and browse all federated stores.

This would allow multiple actors to be present, while keeping things simple for the users.

This already exists on desktop Linux - all the deb/RPM/Flatpak repositories each have a standardized metadata format, so you just add a URL to the given repo and the OS will work with it the same way as with the default repositories.

Who sets the rules for the federated storefront?

The store design has a lot to do with which apps get attention.

The answer, then, is to have a single "store" app with multiple sources, such that you can add and remove sources at will.

This is exactly what F-Droid is able to do on Android, and what nearly all reasonably-popular Linux distributions have been able to do for decades.

Didn't Linux package repos solve this like 20 years ago? The store app (or yum/apt/whatever) is the entry point then you load in as many repo URLs as you want. Can't that model expand to phones?

It's basically how my Fire TV worked. I could search for a title in the home screen and it would tell me that it was on Prime Video, Hulu, Netflix or I could rent from Amazon or whatever.

The only reason Linux doesn't have malware/viruses is because the number of people running it on the desktop is basically zero. And the people using them are much more technically savvy so it's really not worth anyone's trouble.

Now if you were to take the package model and move it to Windows it would be the same mess we have today.

Many of us, including Apple, do not want ransomware, malware and viruses on their phone. It's not a computer. It's a phone.

Great then don't install the other repos.

IIRC FB and Uber both got caught doing things other companies couldn't do. Apple's vetting process is not foolproof either. Apps still do things I don't want them to do, on my own device.

Apple can still control the OS and device and sandbox the apps and app stores. It's not an insurmountable problem.

Another thing many dont know is that distros rebuild all software from source code, so any mallware is hard to hide.

Is your iPhone primarily a gaming device? I don't understand how you're seamlessly leaping from "Phone" to "Game console" and making equivalency comparisons. In my ways my phone/computer is an extension of who I am as a person. They are my second brain. Having that functionality dictated by a company feels nightmarish to me. Imagine if you didn't want to be blasted by multiple internet forums, multiple news feeds, or even multiple websites. Why have more than one website on the internet? Have the entire internet be a single website run by someone you trust. That's the natural conclusion of where your preference leads.

Like iOS devices, all major consoles are locked down and limited to what's in a single app store. Any argument in favor of forcing Apple to allow multiple app stores would also apply to consoles.

I think there's an argument to be made that in practice, smartphones are typically used by most users as general purpose computing devices, while game consoles, despite being technically capable of being general purpose devices, are typically used for a specific purpose.

That being said, I would be perfectly happy if an outcome of this was that end users were able to install whatever software they liked on game consoles.

A smartphone has a pretty defined purpose: communication. It's powerful and generic enough to be a general purpose computing device, sure, but the vast majority of users use it to do just that: make calls, send messages (whether via traditional SMS or social media offerings). It has some secondary usage such as internet browsing (primarily consuming streamed content, these days) and photography (largely for messaging/social media purposes). Occasionally it might be used for something more heavy duty, like some light editing of photos and videos. Some people play games on it. But it's still oriented around being a communication device.

There isn't much difference between that and a modern gaming console (apart from the orientation being around games/interactive entertainment). Take my PS4, for example: beyond the games there's pretty capable light photo and video editing software, a web browser (based on Webkit, actually, and has a surprisingly pleasant and minimal UI/UX even when using just the controller and not an external keyboard and mouse), a ton of content apps (Netflix, Disney+, Spotify, YouTube, DAZN, etc) as well as Twitch and the Playstation Network platform (essentially social media). In my opinion the only thing holding it back from gaining more apps and completely eating up the lower end of the desktop market is that developing apps for it is prohibitively expensive (gotta order a dev kit). Even at that I still plan to keep it around as a very light desktop alternative when I replace it with the next generation.

Let's assume that phones are general purpose computing devices.

So what ? There is no legal requirement that computers must have user-installable apps or comply with some standard around openness. Nor is there some rationale as to why computers should be treated differently to any other device that can run apps.

And if Sony decides to ship a browser with PS5 does it suddenly switch to a general purpose computer device and must allow competing app stores. And if they remove it does it switch back to a console.

The whole concept is completely nonsensical and unworkable.

Separate the hardware from the software. The devices:phones or consoles, as hardware ARE general purpose computing capable.

The software limitations is where the arbitrary restrictions come in. But as you say there is no legal requirement for "user-installable apps".

But there ARE laws about anti-competitive behaviour. Whether they apply? The courts will decide soon I guess.

I can see it from the point where Apple makes Apps and yet also profits from their competitors Apps.

Mind you, I can also see a reasoning that by keeping an App in the market Apple can set a base minimum for quality, hence setting a floor for the experience for end users. But they could do that via their gatekeeping anyway too...

Any retail xbox one can turn on DEV mode and run self made UWP games and apps, switching back and forth is very easy.

https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/uwp/xbox-apps/devki...

That is what Apple should do then; allow people to install Android on their devices

Yes but for most people an Xbox or a PS4 is not a requirement for their livelihood.

Would you be okay with a Microsoft-owned app store that controls all app purchases and in-app purchases for all PCs?

That existed for years in the form of Windows RT. It's also an option in Windows 10 called S mode.[1] I wouldn't buy such a device for myself, but I'd certainly consider it for my grandmother. It seems like a useful way to prevent naive users from installing malware.

1. https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/help/4020089/windows-10-...

If your phone is an extension of your person, and you don't like how that extension works, then replace that extension with a different one. There are plenty of phones on the market.

"Love it or leave" ? :-P

You can certainly do that. But we are also allowed to wish/hope/verbalise/act to make the current thing better.

As for what "better" is? Ultimately that's decided by the courts but we can express wishes.

Or tweak what you got

And then be ostracized from your social groups because no one wants to see green bubbles in their group chats.

Not a problem I personally experience but one many people have reported. This may also be less of a problem with COVID, I'm not sure.

The 'your iPhone is an Xbox' is the Gruber approved narrative as of last week, the Apple community left defending this is sextupling down on that idea.

I’ve been saying the exact same thing for about a decade. Check my HN comment history on Algolia.

Nevertheless I think Apple are making some missteps. I think they made a mistake on the game streaming service decision. Epic can go take a running jump though.

Or, it’s an extremely obvious immediate parallel

Last time I checked I didn’t use my Switch to check emails, download the Covid App, pay in a store, download and send documents or board a flight. The smartphone is an important driver for my daily life, a console is not.

Why not? If it wasn’t so locked down you’d be able to install apps to do all those things.

that bizarrely didn't appear till last week, which is odd. Before that it was 'appliance'. But I'll accept the downvotes for the churlish tone

I was describing the iPad as an "app console" back in 2010 (https://tracks.ranea.org/post/1432038656/geek-luddites). It's not at all impossible Gruber read my blog post on that back then, in fact, as it was linked around a few places.

I think you're getting a bit hung up on the language -- "appliance" and "console" are trying to communicate basically the same thing, e.g., a device which on a technical level could absolutely be a general purpose computing platform but has been restricted from that by design.

I haven’t read Gruber in years and the literal first thing I thought when the “they don’t let other people use their platform” argument was made is “Why would this not apply to any other platform, <think of another highly locked down platform> like consoles!”

And even assuming the antitrust/monopoly argument holds, is there some barely-known exception to “general devices only”?

I’d love it if I could load my own stuff onto consoles, but don’t see how this could be practically compelled in a way that isn’t massively impactful to _everything_, especially with security and piracy implications.

You really haven’t been around here long. I’ve been making the argument for months with the downvotes to prove it.

> I don’t want 5 blasted stores on my iPhone

I don't want 5 blasted distribution methods on my (Android) phone. I'm perfectly happy with 5 different sources, though. Put plainly: I want repositories, not stores. I get to use the same tool (app) to manage all of them, and I can add different sources if I'd like.

One store is great IF you can load apps independently from other sources

Which you can in android, it's a setting everyone is free to change at any time.

Not just the user, but the developers want a single store. As a developer you are focused on writing apps; you don't want to spend energy to figure out how to upload apps to 5 different stores, understand their individual requirements like app descriptions and screenshots, manage 5 sets of credentials and certificates, deal with 5 different review processes, etc.

Just ask any android developer who develop for the Chinese market where Google is absent. It's a nightmare.

The problem I have with one-store-to-rule-them-all is that it has to be run by somebody, and I never agree with the decisions of one judge 100% of the time. So I like to have the option to get software somewhere else. I purchased the device, after all.

This is an anticompetitive argument. You're asking to be taken advantage of.

Are you saying people avoid other stores even though they know about them? Then I disagree. If I ask people I know in real life, they can't tell any other app store besides Google's. Even if their phone includes others. Every phone comes pre-installed with play store. Then they don't look for another store, they never need that. People learn and teach others how to install apps only from play store.

> I don’t want 5 blasted stores on my iPhone. I want one store and run by someone I trust.

You must be representing the first generation that is anti-competition and pro-monopoly. It makes no sense that you would really want to have fewer options to buy a product. If the problem is trust, then clearly what you need is regulation, not a monopoly.

That seems like such a ridiculous attitude.

I want one just one grocery store! Want less common ingredients? NO! I just want one store! I want just one hardware store! Want some part they don't carry? Sucks to be you. Just one car store, etc...

If nothing else I at least one two stores. One for regular apps and one for porn apps. You can see steam now has lots of adult apps.

Are there any well-curated and maintained app store alternatives?

I'd love to keep Google Play off my phone if there were a competitor who did a better job at surfacing truly great apps (rather than the garbage suggestions Google spams me with) and passed on a bigger piece of the pie to publishers.

FDroid and also the Aurora alernative Google Play client.

What you're describing is a natural monopoly.

What about _no stores at all_? I am fine downloading the app or buying it from the dev website.

I want 0 stores.

Exactly. Consumers don’t want stores really. They want the content that comes from them. Businesses want stores.

I'm a customer. I do not want to vet all brand quality for each brand individually. I want to be able to choose between a few pre-vetted options that I can already trust.

I want stores like Costco and Apple's AppStore because I trust those companies to vet brand quality and provide me a basic level of trust for the products. I'm happy to pay a 30% premium for that piece of mind.

On the one hand I agree with this.

On the other hand I would like the option to add another App Store who's "Brand of quality and trust to vet apps" I can compare to Apple's store... and so the layers go...

On the gripping hand, it is the "benevolent dictator" problem. A benevolent dictator really can be an efficient and great way to run things. For the people that agree with the dictator.

But who determines who the dictator should be and what makes them benevolent?

Vetting is separate from selling. There can be a vetting service that just links to direct downloads. I use stuff like that on my PC all the time. The only reason to lock the obtaining of a product behind the vetting service is to grab money.

> iPhone, Switch, PS5, XBOX [..] I have plenty of choices thanks.

I can hardly imagine anything more pathetic than listing 4 locked down, corporate controlled devices, and calling that "choice".

> Same for me, I don’t want 5 blasted stores on my iPhone. I want one store and run by someone I trust

To be honest, I wouldn't mind having the option to specify multiple stores that I trust the same way I do the Google Play store. I could imagine having Google Play, the Epic store, the Blizzard store, and Steam on my phone if that were necessary.

I am not worried about being spammed with stuff, as apps don't run until you open them, normally, and I already have granular controls over what notifications spam me on Android as it is.

> I could imagine having Google Play, the Epic store, the Blizzard store, and Steam on my phone if that were necessary.

This sounds like an absolute nightmare.

Oh, it really would be. :D I meant more that if one did have it, I would not be afraid to get spammed with notifications, any more than i already am (and turn them off...) for any other game or app I install.