This is basically what I want, most of the time, and it's hard to achieve it outside the App Store.
IIRC Chrome even asks you if you want to enable that setting once you download an APK file.
And why this extreme generalization, exactly? Don't you suppose you could have privacy, security, and perhaps even simplicity and ease-of-use with a totally free and open phone that grants control to the user? You really don't explain how "a totally open platform" is mutually exclusive, nor how your own personal needs require the inverse of freedom. Further, the distinction between computer and mobile device are irrelevant given so many people depend on the later as their main computing device. They should be offered the same degree of control as someone with a computer has.
Ultimately, you cannot have privacy and security in a closed-source restricted platform, even if it's backed by good intentions. You're at the mercy of a few companies and as soon as they abandon the device, or make a mistake, you're exposed. And as a consumer, you're forced to buy into their ecosystem instead of having the choice to provide your own solutions. This is already true for the hardware, such as the black-box baseband required to connect to cellular networks.
While this kind of support doesn't technically preclude open-source code, it's hard to find both in one. Red Hat is one rare exception to this - providing a comprehensive, supported solution that also happens to be open-source. But the economics tend to push it to be one or the other. In this case, I'm perfectly fine making that trade.
Phones are more then likely the workstations of the future (when we figure out how to use them more effectively then the workstations).
The problem with that is that the nature of the issue is that it doesn't matter to you ... until it does. Like freedom of speech - you will never notice that your government is censoring you until you have a controversial viewpoint. And then it will matter. But all the people without those viewpoints will still wander around saying they can't see what all the fuss is about freedom of speech. This is intrinsically a problem you have to care about in advance of when you need it.
>Workstations need to be totally user-controlled,
I believe chromeOS is a good example of a stripped down less tunable OS that works great and is perfect for inexpensive Atom based machines that still have good build quality, battery life, and displays while being simple to use.
I believe trying to push the "store" model to desktops smacks of a solution that generates a lot of $$$ for M$ and Apple in search of a problem.
At the same time, maintaining that level of control seems to be a central feature of iOS's security and privacy model. It's not just about ensuring that only trusted software can be installed in the first place, it's also about having some sort of mechanism for fixing the problem when software that had previously been approved proves to be malware, or when a publisher who had previously been approved turns out to be a bad player.
For an example of what's possible in environment where you aren't limited to running trusted software, earlier this week I had a conversation with an acquaintance who had recently paid hundreds of dollars to a ransomware scammer. To me, the value of being able to prevent those kinds of abuse is pretty straightforward.
What Apple's doing with Facebook and Google is grayer, but I can see where they're coming from. They have strict privacy rules that they expect to be followed on all apps released to the public, and Facebook and Google were using the enterprise program to circumvent those rules. In light of that, you could argue that they had to follow through on their terms of service in order to demonstrate good faith to their customers who rely on them to enforce those privacy rules.
At the end of the day, you can compile and run anything on your machine. This is just regulating distribution. Given the specific breaches at hand by Facebook and Google, a balance seems to have been found (acceptable to most users) between freedom and security.
It's free to get one though, but it only lasts for a week or so. You can pay to become a developer and I think you get one that lasts a year instead.
I agree that Google Play Services is not competition friendly, but that is a different topic.
The installer is a piece of software made by Apple, to install things that meet certain criteria(ie signed packages). It's not that you can't technically "install" other things, but there doesn't exist a mechanism to do so.
Not really. You have to pay the ransom^W^W$100 for a developer account every year.
Iff you have a Mac. And even then, you need to recompile it every week.
I'd prefer something else for my personal toy applications so I don't even need to bother with this, but it's not a huge deal to me.
The advantage of the Free Profile is that (afaik) it can't be revoked or censored. Disadvantage is 7 day lifespan.
I'll do it for you: both Facebook and Google were crystal clear violations. Like, not anywhere close to the intended use case for Enterprise distribution
I don't complain about my Xbox because I can buy a computer that can run most the same games where I can do anything I want (not to say I don't want to be able to do anything but phones are a much bigger market with only 1 real competitor which does allow you to side load apps)
I don’t want to put words in your mouth, but to paraphrase in saying there is ‘only one’ choice in the market that is truly open you seem to be arguing that any second option ought to be too. That competition on openness is more important that there even being a closed option at all. Surely that would give consumers less choice though, not more?
But as I have pointed out, there have been plenty of other options and every now and then a ‘truly’ open phone comes out again.
So far they have used the power sparingly, at the end of the day it could have been a cute cat app and did nothing wrong but it still broke Apple's terms that these companies agreed to and Apple acted accordingly.
If you don't, we end up going back to the Blaster worm days of 2003, where software gets installed and regular people don't know how to get rid of it.
That's your only two options? Sounds like you've already made your decision.
This control is a feature and one of the reasons I use iOS. I value a system I can trust to be free of malware. I know that when I recommend iPhone to friends and family, I will never have to field a support call involving a mountain of malware that was installed because they were tricked into clicking “ok”.
I trust my iPhone way more than my desktop, laptop, or any SaaS. Same with my iPad. I can’t wait for the end of the era of bad-guys-win-by-default.
It will cost $500 to ditch Apple and replace them; there’s a 10% chance I will have to switch before I’d make my next purchase anyway; and Apple has to date saved me over $50 in frustration via their control of the ecosystem.
So I’m willing to ride it out and see what happens.
With the above said, we can certainly discuss if Apple should use/have this ability at all. But, IMO it is a different discussion.
This kind of behavior from executives[0] is precisely why I invested in Apple products in the first place — why I took the risk at all.
I meant that I don’t see this as any reason to get out, from a pure “well, what if they abuse their power?” perspective: the risk is low, given the way they’ve acted until now, and the total possible cost is reasonably bounded — I’ve already had enough upside to eclipse the risk weighted cost, this was a good investment.
So why would I even worry about it until something bad did happen? The homo economis answer is to let your bet ride, until the point you were going to re-evaluate anyway, when buying a new phone.
[0] There is approximately 0% chance Google and Facebook were kicked out of dev programs without running it by senior executives.
That being said, the official channels are sanctioned and sponsored by Apple (or Google) and so it is their reputation on the line when it comes to malicious or questionable Apps.
So I can completely understand Apple (or Google) removing certs or banning companies for violating the terms of their platform.
And I think this exertion of power might be a bad thing as it demonstrates that users do not really own their devices and are only allowed to do with them what Apple (or Google) permits.
My device is little more to me than something to run a web browser. I despise native apps. Facebook and Googles apps can - and should IMO - be run from a browser without crossing over into my personal contacts and photos.
Apple has zero authority over who I contact or what content I access over the web.
With any luck, this drives development back towards the web. I haven't had Facebook on my phone in years because their mobile layout is unbearable and their apps are invasive.
Why?
The last straw for me was when Facebook messenger pocket dialed a "friend" I hadn't talked to in 7 years. Not only was it something I had no use for, it was outright invasive.
I'm disagreeing with the premise that you have to develop for their platforms and distribute for it. That's not a fact. That's an opinion. While there may be some apps that _couldnt_ operate on the web, 99% of apps don't fall into this.
Facebook. Instagram. WhatsApp. Gmail. Google maps. Pinterest. These can all be done in a mobile friendly way in browser. They're intentionally not done because of "performance" and the fact that apps want deeper access to the device.
I don't want any or those apps getting access to my GPS. Or my files. Or my contacts. Id rather take additional steps to upload a picture, or type in my "from" address rather than auto-GPS.
You're setting your argument up for failure before you even present it when it's foundation is a clear and intentional misinterpretation of someone else's words.
Very, very few apps need to be developed natively.
The vast, vast majority would be better if developed for the browser.
This obviously depends on exactly what you're talking about, I concede there are some specific applications that require it. Maybe _your_ specific app requires in, in which case, _you_ have to live with the trade-off of the gatekeepers.
Mostly, it's a self imposed prison.
I never said anything of the sort, you're again manipulating what was said to give you an opportunity to stand on your soap box. I said Apple and Google control the distribution channel and have an interest in protecting it.
Web Apps are at a distinct disadvantage on both platforms because Apple and Google control the channel to dissuade them from reaching mass adoption.
If anything I said that these actions might actually help Web Apps.
https://www.recode.net/2018/9/12/17848384/nicole-wong-cto-la...
But in reality, to yield this kinda of power, you MUST apply it equally and fairly. Apple has been far from a fair arbiter in its app platform.
typo i think but totally alters meaning