If that comes to pass, there will be no highly-guarded, highly-moderated mobile OS to choose from. Apple has tremendous resources and expends tremendous resources, under pressure of tremendous incentives, to moderate it well. Do you think Third-party app stores will be moderated better or worse on average? Not just with respect to content decisions, but privacy, security and the works.
There is a very reasonable case that having a solidly-guarded and moderated mobile OS as an option in the market is good for consumers. It may boggle the tech-savvy mind, but another way of reading the incredibly successful 10 year history of this horribly locked-down, oppressive OS is that the market has spoken. And it's happy.
My wife fell into this category when we first met, after I began teaching her even just some basics and she learned to question things and be more careful, I haven't needed to "diagnose" her computer in a long time (I still do regular maintenance, but irregular issues never come up anymore). So I would say that education is the biggest key in this regard, teach them to start with a zero trust model.
Problem solved. If you want the walled garden, opt in at the beginning, and now your children/grandmother are safe as long as they don't literally reset their phone, wiping all their pictures/apps/whatever.
Zero chance Facebook doesn't do this with Instagram. Zero chance large employers don't do this with their surveillance software.
https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2019/01/facebook-and-google-...
From Netflix' perspective that still adds considerable UX friction, and some percentage of potential customers will drop off.
At what percentage cut is it better for them to just stay in the Apple store? 10%? 5%? 2%? At any of those rates Apple still makes boatloads of money.
Android already allows side-loading and i don't think any popular app out there is asking users to enable side-loading to install their app. Why do you think the situation would be any different with iOS app store?
Aggressive Protection? Sounds like the Mafia. Protection, paid for by you whether you want it or not. Pay the 30% or the mafia's going to break your kneecaps.
People and organisations do it because it’s highly profitable, and it’s highly profitable because it’s a trusted and curated platform (unlike the competition).
Pretending this is anything like the mafia is childish.
Some examples: I hate it how there’s no adult content allowed in the App Store. Or how if I build my own version of Signal, I have to disable push notifications and things because I haven’t paid apple enough money or something. I hate that last I checked, I can’t buy books in the audible app. If my camera breaks, I apparently can’t get it fixed by anyone except Apple. I hate how Apple charges my bank for the privilege of using the NFC chip in my phone, which I paid for.
It’s ridiculous to demand that Epic games makes their own phone if they want to sell me their game. Ideologically, this is capitalism. But capitalism works best for everyone when there’s healthy competition. Wielding their superior phones to enforce a monopoly in other parts of the ecosystem is anticompetitive and anti consumer. And I’m glad someone is finally standing up to them.
If you don’t like your phone, get another one. This is the most ridiculous first world problem, and associated whining, I’ve ever seen.
You have alternatives, but you’ve willingly chosen the iPhone. Then you whine that it’s not sufficiently like the competition, despite this being the headline feature of this product and company. It’s completely childish and ridiculous.
Let me make this very clear for you: I, as an end user, want Apple to have complete control over its platform. That’s precisely why I bought into this, and not another ecosystem. I do not want sideloading, I do not want alternative stores, I do not want the so-called “healthy competition”. And I should be able to make that choice, as a consumer.
The headline feature of apple devices for me is that unlike Google, Apple cares about my privacy and security. Apple doesn't offer a devil's bargain with every first party feature. "We can turn this great new thing on - but in exchange, we're going to track your physical movements everywhere. We can turn this other thing on, but we'll record, save and send audio recordings of your life."
Right now I have to decide between having control of my device but no control of my data (google). Or having control over my data but no control over my device (apple). That decision is crap.
> I, as an end user, want Apple to have complete control over its platform
Good for you. In comparison, I want to have more control over the devices I paid good money for. I don't want to live in a digital serfdom, where my only freedoms are those granted to me by the local lord of the cloud.
I don't want accidentally offending an algorithm to result in banishment (google). Or, in Apple's case, for the local lord to tax and morally judge every trade that takes place under their watch.
If you want to spend your life in Apple's walled garden, great! But I don't want owning the best phone to mean I'm trapped there with you. I demand to be able to enter into a voluntary financial agreement with Epic games if I like. I don't want my own phone to have the power to stop me or levy a tax, just so some Apple VP gets a bigger bonus.
And I pray it stays that way.
I’m sorry mate, but the reality of the situation is that your wishes mean nothing and Apple owes you zilch. You don’t like that, feel free to go somewhere else.
You imposing your views on all of us is not freedom. It’s the opposite of that.
You want open software? Linux is a thing, I should know, I use it every day.
You want a walled garden? Well you should be able to have that choice, too. You want to take that away from me while pretending to do it for the greater good, when in reality it’s just a selfish desire to impose your will on others.
> And I pray it stays that way.
If Epic had an alternate app store, you know you wouldn't have to use it right? You could still use Apple's walled garden. Granting me the ability to run more software on my device doesn't restrict your ability to control what runs on your device.
> it’s just a selfish desire to impose your will on others.
You're the one arguing for restrictions about what I can do on my phone. I don't care what you do with yours. Nothing Epic is proposing would stop Apple from reviewing apps and selling them in the app store.
And if opening the door to free and open marketplaces, with the user in the driver's seat is selfish, guilty as charged! Sign me up! The engine of capitalism works best with healthy competition. (And no, the phone megacorp duopoly is not healthy competition.)
Reigning in monopolies is what healthy regulation is made for.
Apple has a clear, technologically enforced, complete monopoly on apps distributed on their phones. And google has a weak monopoly on their phones - you can distribute your app on other app stores, but its difficult for everyone. The situation on Android is slightly worse than Microsoft distributing IE with windows. And when that happened, the feds initiated a huge antitrust case against microsoft and nearly broke up the company.
Does the fact that there's competition in the phone market mean we should forgive monopolistic behaviour in the app markets on those phones? Thats a tricky question. Its too simple to just fall back on heuristics.
Is there monopolistic behaviour in the app market?
- Does the monopolistic provider use their position to block competition? Yes. Apple doesn't allow any competitors to their own software in the app store.
- Does the monopolistic provider rent seek, and extract far more money from the market than they would if there was healthy competition? Uncertain - I'm not sure if 15% is a reasonable or unreasonable cut. 30% almost certainly wasn't reasonable for the services apple provided.
- Do people buy phones mostly because of their app stores? If they do, then phone competition == app store competition. If they primarily choose a phone on other factors (cameras, etc) then these are separate markets and should be considered separately. Answer: ???
Is there a precedent? Its not exactly the same, but Australia didn't like telstra (an ISP who owned most of the cable at the time) renting their cables at unreasonable prices to other ISPs. They stopped anyone else from reasonably competing with them. You could make the same argument - "You willingly bought a house there so you can't complain. If you don't like it, move". But we regulated them anyway. Notably the US hasn't regulated comcast / etc from doing the same thing over there.
Longer answer than you were expecting. tldr; its complicated. Heuristics aren't enough. Personally I don't think competition in phones means its acceptable that we have monopolies in app stores. I find the justifications for letting apple have a monopoly in the app store unconvincing and I favor regulation.
Let's call a spade, a spade. Your position appears to be "I don't want to choose, and I don't want anyone else to be able to choose either".
That is certainly not the paragon of virtue. Letting people choose -- which doesn't affect you at all - is.
Apple has made a strategic decision to maintain this walled garden. This decision is one of the company’s key differentiators.
Your position appears to be “I want to force Apple to abandon a key market differentiator in service of a marginal gain in personal freedom for a marginal segment of customers who would actually care about such change.”
Apple customers are lacking choice in software just as much as Trader Joe’s customers are lacking choice in food brands.
I certainly didn't buy an iphone because I want to pay an extra tax whenever I buy apps.
Yes! And you’re being wilfully dishonest by not acknowledging this point, despite me repeating it to you a dozen times.
> I didn’t buy an iphone because [...]
Well, I did.
Epic likely doesn’t want an ‘alternative’ App Store they want one that they completely control.
Good. Don't use them. Do you use every single feature of your phone? Of course not. There are probably features you don't even know about.
So don't use them. The mere presence of the feature doesn't obligate you to use it.
Why the hell should Facebook comply with Apple’s every whim and wish, if they could just publish on a different store with less stringent privacy rules, and force you to download it that way? “You want Facebook? Go to Settings -> Privacy, then uncheck the bla bla bla box, and install Fb Store. Then...”. Yeah, no, that’s my worst nightmare.
Seriously, how do you people not get this?
There's no reason Apple can't enforce the same privacy options OS wide, even for sideloaded apps.
Of course they don't want to, they would lose their 30% cut. But if they are forced to allow 3rd party app stores they would have to, if they wanted to continue their privacy focused marketing.
Pretending this doesn't have deep parallels to the mafia is childish. Keep pretending and we'll have Tony break your kneecaps.
There are plenty of parallels between Apple and the Mafia. Just ask Epic, who's kneecaps were busted for not paying the Don his share.
Yes, exactly like the mafia.
I'll gladly buy some games from the alternative store... because I love competition - unlike the Mafia.
If this was a Microsoft phone and Microsoft controlled the market share Apple does? people would be stampeding to force Microsoft to allow competing stores (or browsers, default email applications, etc) on them because anti-competitive behavior.
Yet Apple is "magical" and gets a pass for not allowing competition on "their" devices.
Even Google allows "sideloading".
Why does everything need to be like Android, which has way higher market share anyway? How exactly will that give us more choice, if everything has to be identical?
I buy Apple products precisely because Apple has complete control over its devices, not in spite of it. Get it through your thick head.
"I Buy apple" and others buy Apple while still wanting choice within that ecosystem of hardware. Why don't YOU get that through YOUR thick skull? You aren't the only customer and other people deserve the choice - which is why regulations exist to break up monopolies.
Thanks for, basically, admitting that I'm right and that the Don is willing to break kneecaps to keep control of their fiefdom.
Just because there are some other options... doesn't negate the fact that Apple is using monopolistic and anti-competitive tactics to limit consumer choice and business options.
There's zero reason why Epic should be force to pay Apple a 30% cut of all income when Epic has the resources and talent to do so.
Zero reason... other than mafia tactics.
It's not a tacit admission. I will admit it openly. Apple has a close system with full control over it, and that's just the way I like it.
You think that it's a bad thing. I don't. There's nothing to hide on my part, I'm completely honest about it.
> which is why regulations exist to break up monopolies
Which Apple is not.
God, you're dumb, and you don't even know it.
He was tech illiterate. Yet without any effort or choice, people had engineered multiple ways to compromise the basic functionality of sending a message.
If I could have burned his phone in a fire and given him an iPhone, I would have.
He struggled with the tech until someone showed him how something worked, at which point he diligently studied that one app for all it’s worth - but this was limited to YouTube and audio recording apps.
For him to have multiple messaging apps? Can’t see him do it intentionally - most likely he got hit by a pop up which then merrily used it to install a new messaging service.
It was a nightmare because he kept losing track and therefore control of what was going on with his phone. I’m sure the data security and privacy settings on those messaging apps would have been more upsetting.
For his use case a simple big standard iPhone would have made him happier, instead of having to wait for someone else to help him out.
The App Store (and reduced API surface) was a true revolution for the customer. Remember every app installer requiring admin privilege on Windows and creating it's service that runs at startup checking for updates, littering the registry and sometimes installing drivers?
All gone from the App Store. If the app maker doesn't like it he can go target another platform.
Even on Android, the amount of useless software side loaded by the manufacturer is mind boggling.
Missing the point. Sure, many users will trust the Netflix app, but we only need one trustworthy app (like Netflix) to open the gate for all other kinds of untrustworthy apps to also skip the check.
Now you're in the situation "I've already done this, nothing happened. But of course, I shouldn't do it all the time. There's a reason the warning is there."
Now you want to try out this other app. The company doesn't seem shady, but they're new, they don't yet have the reputation Netflix has. So you don't trust it "absolutely", but "pretty much". OK, you go ahead, just for this one app.
Now you're even more used to clicking through the warning. Repeat a few times. Now you're installing totally_not_malware.apk. What could go wrong? You've already installed a bunch of apps this way with no issue. Plus this one app clearly isn't malware, it says so in the title! Also, all your friends are using it and you don't want to be left out.
Most people I've heard referred as "tech savvy" are just plain old gamers, and they can be easily tricked.
Android has only been asking once per source, not per app, for a while. Also, the messages aren't that scary. Folks haphazardly click OK in Windows without reading messages; you can be sure they do the same on a phone.
Then we deal with that later?
It's the same situation as with "third-party" package stores in your favorite Linux distro. Say, on Ubuntu you add a particular PPA, you got to see its PGP signature, etc.
So in the Netflix case, it will be a Netflix store, secured by a DNS + TLS lookup, and limited to what Netflix has to offer.
But consider differently curated stores, some maybe even requiring a subscription fee to support the operation, discovering, checking, and maybe suggesting apps in different areas: from as wide as art apps or music creation apps, to as narrow as high-quality puzzle game apps. (Of course, an app might be available through more than one store.)
When has the market been given a choice?
App Stores have been the only way to get software on iPhones since they were first released. I can't even install an alternative OS on my iPhone, and jailbreaking seems to have become less accessible now too. How do we know what experience is more competitive if competition isn't allowed to blossom? Maybe the market would value an alternative App Store that is able to compete on moderation and/or the 30% developer tax status quo?
> If that comes to pass, there will be no highly-guarded, highly-moderated mobile OS to choose from.
If the market wants this kind of experience, then surely it will continue to exist no?
The choice now is between Apple and Android ecosystems. The best Android phones have comparable hardware to the iPhone, so people are choosing based on software, price, and status.
This is a great place for regulatory intervention to act for the good of the people. I don't really care about the good of Apple. It is the world's most highly valued company, right? It'll be fine.
Librem 5 or Pinephone is a thing as well.
If you're gonna downvote me, I mean... I really feel like the burden is on someone to demonstrate how Apple is somehow more ethical, rather than on me to demonstrate how I'm more ethical than apple lmao
If this is keeping people from switching, then the costs are infinitessimal. Samsung has great importers for you to switch platforms.
That is the battle Epic is currently fighting, to remove the ability for anyone on the market to offer this option.
By requiring everyone to allow third-party app stores, you effectively remove the option for a fully curated experience. Because as mentioned, once a few popular apps start demanding usage of the third-party app store, consumers will no longer be able to choose a fully-curated experience without foregoing those services. And that will lead down an inevitable loss of privacy, increased demanding of permissions for marketing, etc - all of which Apple has fairly successfully fought back solely through their centrally-moderated experience. We all lived through the early days of Android before the built-in flashlight when you had flashlight apps demanding full permissions to monitor everything you do.
It is, in a sense, another "paradox of tolerance" - you have to restrict user freedoms in one area (what users are allowed to install) to protect them in another area (predatory developers). Apple's walled garden is the only thing keeping those marketing departments at bay, their restrictions on app-developer (and ultimately end-user) freedom are what protects your privacy. Similar perhaps to how GNU and BSD regard "freedoms" differently - BSD regards developer freedom as paramount, while GNU regards user freedom as paramount, and these are not quite the same things. While BSD protects developer freedom to release proprietary code on top of BSD code, GNU restricts developer freedom and forces that to be released under GNU license as well. And ultimately that translates into a loss of user freedom in some sense - surely users would like the ability to have ZFS distributed alongside the Linux kernel, but GNU restricts that freedom in furtherance of the big-picture.
Ironic as it is, the Apple Store is the GNU of this situation. They are willing to burn some specific cases of application developers who are not willing to accept the licensing terms, in order to protect the big-picture of user freedoms (privacy). Android is the "BSD", where they are more concerned about developer freedom than user freedom. And the loss of specific apps is analogous to the friction between mixing source under copyleft license with other open-source licenses.
If you want third-party app stores, Android exists. This is about Epic fighting to take away the option to have a moderated, quality-controlled experience and eroding the ability of users to maintain their privacy.
I've read a lot of mind-boggling post-hoc rationalisation of Apple's anti-competitive and paternalistic behaviour, but this definitely takes the cake.
Does GNU not (at times) restrict the distribution of software that end-users might find desirable, in order to protect their rights as a whole? Why do you think that is bad?
Has that restriction not resulted in the creation of a high-quality, user-freedom-regarding codebase despite (and in fact because of) those restrictions? Why can Apple’s policy of mandatory curation not have a similar effect on the market as well?
It seems self-evident that a lot of the privacy improvements in recent androids (like filesystem isolation in Android Q) probably would not have occurred without the impetus provided by Apple’s competitive pressure in this area, so you benefit from this even if you choose Android and “the BSD model”.
Like, I completely get that this is a developer-centric community and you see it as Apple gating access to the user base that makes you money. And as a user I see it as Apple blocking nefarious practices that developers clearly race to use as soon as they're allowed, in order to make a couple more pennies off my privacy and worsen my user experience. I don't think it's intellectually honest to pretend there's some huge Apple userbase who's champing at the bit to have Facebook have root access on their phones, they already have Facebook now, and Apple's curation forces Facebook to tone down the worst of their excess. Just like it wouldn't be honest to hear Microsoft whining about how it's not fair that GNU is restricting user freedoms because Microsoft isn't allowed to distribute code that links against GNU source. No user would want Microsoft to link against GNU code, Microsoft might want to do it because it would make them more profit, but you shouldn't put words into my mouth as an Apple customer.
And if you really did want to "sideload" onto your iphone, the only real barrier is having fifty bucks to get an apple developer account. Then you can sideload whatever you want. Similarly, a Microsoft developer account will let you sideload any UWP apps you want onto your Xbox, I've seen tons of people using it as an emulator console recently and that's certainly quite a thing for a walled garden.
Discuss, if you have points to make. Don’t just grump that “Apple bad”, that’s low quality posting.
No, the GPL does not restrict the distribution of software. The GPL requires that source code be made available. That's not remotely the same thing. The GPL also doesn't have anything to do with manual curation. The GPL is also, while we're on the subject, not a platform. The GPL does not prevent you from running GPL-licensed code on another system, or building your own system that interacts with GNU code. Apple does prevent all of those things.
So ignoring that the GPL does not restrict the distribution of software[0] there's still this huge jump in logic you're making that starts with "here is a thing that resulted in good outcomes" and jumps to a completely separate concept and says "maybe this will also have good outcomes." But it's an Apples and Oranges comparison.
It's like saying, "the GPL has resulted in good software. Maybe an increased federal minimum wage will also be good." Those two things aren't related to each other.
> It seems self-evident that a lot of the privacy improvements in recent androids (like filesystem isolation in Android Q) probably would not have occurred without the impetus provided by Apple’s competitive pressure in this area
It is also self evident that concepts like filesystem isolation do not require gatekeepers to work. The web has better security than your iPhone. It just does. And it doesn't require mandatory curation to get those benefits. It is possible to build systems that have good sandboxing controls without closing down platforms and installing gatekeepers that decide who is and isn't allowed to make software. Filesystem isolation is a good example of that. We can do things like retire persistent device advertising IDs without an app store.
> it's not fair that GNU is restricting user freedoms because Microsoft isn't allowed to distribute code that links against GNU source
No, Microsoft can distribute code that links against a GPL library, in fact if they link against a GPL-licensed source they are required to do so with the code they link. The lack of restrictions in the GPL is the reason why the GNU and the OSCI don't recognize "source-available" licenses like SSPL, which do actually restrict user freedom. The GPL is a different thing. We actually do want Microsoft to link to GPL code, and sometimes Microsoft does release code under the GPL, and we're all usually happy about it.
[0]: In fact, if anything it's the opposite, it requires the distribution of software code (in some instances). The GPL is never going to tell you that you can't release something.
GNU says you can't distribute their source unless their license terms are met. That's a restriction on distribution, yes. For example, it's not legal to distribute kernel source alongside CDDL licensed code like ZFS.
If we were to apply your standard to Apple - Apple doesn't restrict what apps can get into the app store, they restrict what apps in the app store are allowed to do. You cannot request permissions you don't use, for example, but they don't say that "Facebook is allowed and Instagram is not". Any other application that does what Epic does would have been blocked too, that is the licensing requirement of Apple's software environment.
> It is also self evident that concepts like filesystem isolation do not require gatekeepers to work
I in fact never said they did, this is putting words into my mouth.
I said there would have been no market impetus on Android to offer them without Apple doing them first. Which is self-evidently true as well - why are those features only being offered in Android Q? Why did it take 15 years?
> So ignoring that the GNU does not restrict the distribution of software[0] there's still this huge jump in logic
It's not a jump in logic, I'm asking you a very simple question: are there situations in which restrictions in certain "user freedoms" (such as the ability to receive CDDL code distributed alongside GPL code) produce an overall better outcome despite small-scale negative outcomes from players who do not comply with the overall licensing requirements?
Just saying that is apples and oranges doesn't mean anything. Tell me why that's not true.
Ultimately it is a microcosm of the paradox of tolerance. "The only thing that cannot be tolerated is intolerance itself". And similarly "The only freedom that cannot be tolerated is the freedom to violate user freedom" is the basis of both GPL and the Apple store license.
If you want the app store where you can do anything, there is Android. Apple is attempting to provide a curated user experience. They aren't preventing you from buying Android, just doing a model they think is better for their users. And that's the freedom of contract in action. Their users have alternatives and are free to go elsewhere. Why don't you think they should be allowed to prefer that?
Would it be OK to sue the GNU Foundation and force them to dual-license all existing code as BSD because copyleft is "anti-competitive"? Why or why not? If not, why should Apple be forced to alter their license agreement to allow third-party stores?
Where? GNU says that you can't link against a GPL-licensed[0] source without meeting those license requirements. There are zero restrictions on distributing GPL code, and there are zero restrictions on distributing your own code. There are also zero restrictions on allowing users to link code themselves. You could distribute your source and separately allow users to link that code to other libraries, and you would not be in violation of the GPL.
> it's not legal to distribute kernel source alongside CDDL licensed code like ZFS
I can run ZFS on Linux. This doesn't seem to be a real problem. There are multiple tutorials online about how to build the kernel with ZFS support, and with FUSE many distros do offer out-of-the-box ZFS support.
What is a piece of software that I am not allowed to run on Linux because of the GPL? I can run completely proprietary NVidia graphics drivers on Linux. How is my freedom as a user being taken away? This is not a comparable situation.
In fact, the only ecosystem where this is actually a problem is the Apple App Store, which disallows developers from distributing their software in a GPL-compatible way.
> Apple doesn't restrict what apps can get into the app store, they restrict what apps in the app store are allowed to do.
So Apple will never ban my developer account? They'll only ban an app? They certainly would never threaten to remove a separate app like Unreal Engine from a separate platform like Mac over a legal dispute?
Come on, Apple doesn't have restrictions on what apps can do. They have restrictions on what developers can do. And Apple reserves the right to remove apps from their store for any reason.
> are there situations in which restrictions in certain "user freedoms" [...] produce an overall better outcome
Sure. And at the risk of being a little too sarcastic or petty, that's why I think we should have higher federal minimum wages. The GPL works, so it's obvious that sometimes some restrictions in some areas can produce good outcomes. So therefore, having a higher minimum wage, or requiring software engineers to be licensed, or putting a cap on how much money Apple can charge in its store will also work. It's the same principle. /s
Leaving the snark/sarcasm behind, the comparison you're drawing is inaccurate because:
A) the GPL doesn't restrict people the way you think it does
B) even the restrictions you think the GPL is imposing are wildly different than the restrictions that Apple is imposing
C) the motivations behind the GPL's restrictions are different than Apple's motivations
D) every major architect and proponent of the GNU system has treated Apple's approach to moderation as a restriction of user rights that should be opposed, and they're probably in a good position to understand whether or not Apple is on the same side as them in regards to user freedom
E) the GPL is not a platform or an app runtime, and it doesn't restrict anyone's ability to run other code on top of it
F) the restrictions Apple is imposing are not required to produce secure/private outcomes (which you seem to be acknowledging, you yourself say that you're not claiming gatekeepers are required to build secure features like filesystem isolation)
G) it's not clear even ignoring everything above that the upsides of Apple's moderation are larger than its downsides. In contrast, the effects of the GPL are honestly a lot clearer
H) the majority of the privacy outcomes that Apple is touting were invented on the web long before they came to the iPhone. We might as well ask if Apple is so great at moderation why their entire platform has lagged behind the web by almost a decade in terms of adblocking and app isolation.
> Ultimately it is a microcosm of the paradox of tolerance.
Only if you think the paradox of tolerance means that anybody should be able to restrict any freedom and attack any person as long as they can kinda justify one potential area where they might have a good outcome. Looking at the entirety of Apple's restrictions, it is absurd to argue that they are advocating for user freedom in general.
> Would it be OK to sue the GNU Foundation and force them to dual-license all existing code as BSD because copyleft is "anti-competitive"?
Do they control >50% of the entire commercial market, and do they impose barriers of entry into that market, and do they engage in anti-consumer lock-in behavior that makes it impossible to switch devices for many consumers without giving up access to credit cards, subscriptions, and hundreds of dollars worth of software? Is there strong evidence that being able to exempt themselves from their own requirements allows them to undercut competitor prices?
The GNU is not in the same position as Apple.
----
[0]: Quick note, it is GPL, not GNU. GPL is the license, GNU is the overarching organization and software collection.
I didn't feel I needed to point this out, but I don't even have to like Richard Stallman to find it almost insulting to compare his passion for fighting in what he truly believes in with the highest-valued company in the world trying to protect their market share at all costs.
> Don’t just grump that “Apple bad”, that’s low quality posting.
It's not "Apple bad", it's "unregulated big tech bad", that includes Apple just as much as Facebook, Amazon, Google, and possibly Epic, although I really don't care about them.
(#) But still nowhere near the level of privacy you can have on e.g. a Linux system running only free software. Apple's privacy track record is good compared to other predatory companies, not necessarily on its own.
Android.
In Android, Epic (and probably tens of ISP and carriers) actually tried that strategy and miserably failed.
So yeah this method does work to keep people using the more "safe" options while also letting others have more freedom with their device if they desire.
Don't forget that the market was pushed that way by Apple's highly influential marketing. People didn't really choose to give up their freedom of their own free will --- they were persuaded to, and only found out about the downsides afterwards.
If you could, why would anyone try to innovate on any level? Why are software engineers and product people paid more than marketing people at the same company?
Is Apple > Blackberry just because Apple had better marketing? Or Nokia?
On the other hand, if you have something genuinely desirable, then yeah marketing help people find that thing.
But we're not talking about changing the operating system, are we? We're talking about opening up the marketplace.
If you're relying on perfect/near-perfect moderation of every application in your marketplace to protect your users from abuse by developers, that already seems like asking the impossible.
The operating system should have a robust security and privacy model that protects users, regardless of what software they run on it. But if you have that, the source of the software matters a lot less, and any argument based on restricting distribution to authorised channels will be weakened.
Conflating these two fundamentally different issues might be convenient for Apple's PR or legal departments, but it's still obscuring how a customer's device is being restricted in ways not necessarily in that customer's favour.
They want Apple to have a strong market position, so Apple can dictate their conditions to everyone else. They like the fact that Apple can bend every developer out there including Facebook and Google, because access to Apple users is a luxury. They like the fact that Apple uses its position to benefit Apple users.
Of course Apple uses its position to benefit Apple itself as well, but users don't care as long as they got their personal benefits like improved privacy or security. If that comes at a price to other developers, price that those developers would not pay with more open approach, users still don't care.
If Apple would allow installing of any applications to their phones, plenty of apps would run from Apple, because developers hate Apple. Installing some kind of OpenStore would be the first thing you're doing with your iPhone. AppStore would be empty just like Mac AppStore is empty. Very few developers would willingly pay 15% of their revenue to Apple just to have non-existent AppStore marketing (unless you're in lucky 0.001% who got top ranks). So those developers would not bend to Apple and Apple users would get reduced experience, less privacy, etc.
We need to speak up now more than ever. The heat against Apple is turning up, and with all this pressure and focus we can frame our argument with crystal clarity and make it LOUD.
Tim Sweeny, DHH, and plenty of other luminaries are carrying this argument forward. We need to join them in unison.
Why does everything need to become like Android? Why can’t Apple and its users do their own thing? What’s with this Borg mentality HN has when it comes to Apple?
Assimilate or perish. I genuinely think it’s deep seated envy, frankly.
It's difficult for the HN userset to understand, but a more private, more secure experience is more of a benefit than the ability to install arbitrary unsigned apps.
Most normal users don't care about installing the handful of apps that can't pass Apple certification, and it is in fact probably better that they not be on the platform because there are reasons they're being excluded.
Epic's fight here is to block that user experience from being allowed in the marketplace. There exist "open platforms", people choose Apple because they want curation.
Moreover, Epic is mad because that user experience is winning, there are a significant number of users who prefer curation over the ability to sideload whatever garbage.
If this is true, then you need to ask the question "should big companies be forced to be more competitive, even if doing so means a good amount of customers will lose privacy and security", and your answer will be entirely one of preference, what you say can't be correct or incorrect.
I don’t have any urge to tinker with my phone, iPad or MacBook’s hardware- and that’s why I have them. We do build software via Xcode & Unity, which is an amazing experience, but I’m ok with the hardware being mostly static.
This whole “modern computers should be hackable like DOS machines of the late 80s” is absurd. By that logic we should never have accepted systems on a chip. The only criticism is that I strongly think these devices should have replaceable batteries, even at the cost of thinness.
Nevermind the "famers should own their equipment" argument that states that all general purpose computing devices should allow their owners to run whatever programs they want. The fact that Apple controls banking, dating, email, and a million other economic and social functions should be even more reason. That's an unhealthy amount of power.
Apple shouldn't be able to force literally every company in America to dance to their beat to reach 50% of American consumers.
Really think about it.
Apple controls access to 50% of Americans.
That's monopoly. Only the US Government is more successful in its taxing and regulation regime, and this is theoretically used for the betterment of all citizens rather than just shareholders.
Apple subtracts from our whole industry to add to itself. They're acting like a republic of their own. They're downright impossible to avoid if you want to build a successful business.
Give up your Apple fandom for a moment and think about this.
Is this healthy?
Would you still be happy with it if it were Windows Phone instead of iPhone? Would you still defend it?
This reason is exactly why I'm paying Apple premium.
How is this good and not cruel?
What a burden on our economy.
Can I pick phone from manufacturer with eco-system that takes my wishes into account?
Is there a desktop computer that takes your wishes into account? None of those behave like iPhone. What about a laptop?
Yes. That is why I chosen Apple to be my gatekeeper - they have appropriate leverage. As long as they understand that my privacy is more important than business need of some developer they will stay in this position.
> Is there a desktop computer that takes your wishes into account? None of those behave like iPhone. What about a laptop?
Expectations are different from smartphone, laptop, desktop tablet, mini PC, gaming PC, console, microwave, car etc.
Those devices need not to be the same, behave the same even if there is CPU that can run arbitrary code under the hood.
That is why we have different markets to cater for different needs.
This is where you fail to accept that others might have different views.
It’s up to consumer choice people say, but the reality is, bad behavior, like NYT giving you a hard time to stop a subscription, is more profitable. Spamming your notifications with deals are more profitable. I really wish it wasn’t. And the worst thing is when it’s profitable they have the ad money to drown out all the marketing “the good guys” do.
While I really would prefer the ability to install anything on my iOS device, I don't really want to do that. Not any more.
I like that TrueCaller on my iOS device works for most features without getting any permission from me, while on Android it refuses to buzz from the splash screen unless you give it every permission - including full contact access and phone.
I like that on iOS a famous payment app from India (PhonePe) works flawlessly with zero permissions but on Android? It needs both location and contacts to even function - neither of these are mandatory for their functioning but still they do and can get away with that.
You know WhatsApp doesn't let you use "Status" feature unless you provide Storage permission to it on Android (I doubt they need it just to shows those images, videos, and texts).
I tried Pixel 4a for sometime. The experience was nauseating. Everything from every corner was trying to jump into my face and distract me with this option, that option, that feature, that dark pattern. I found the right swipe quite nifty that shows you news and your daily calendar etc. So I first tried to find a way to only find the news source or types of news I could see - nope, no go! Then I disabled "Discover" and then it was just an empty white screen! I could literally not use that space for anything else. There was a button in the corner that I could tap once, and then it would show me daily calendar events. After one click! I couldn't set it to use the space which "discover" used to take. And mind it discover was just rage news stories.
And that calendar feature had a mind of its own - sometimes it would show the next 1 event, sometimes two I couldn't find a way to show day or week. I had the option to disable the entire right swipe feature.
I didn't want that clock on my home screen - no way to do that. Could I install another Launcher for all this? Yes, I could even though I didn't want to, but they came with other problems and limitations. I couldn't configure the keyboards to be more simple and remove all the settings from it.
Not to mention feature after feature getting disabled as I disable invasive permissions for features and apps.
It feels depressing to literally stare into a phone and see live and read - "you are the product, deal with it!"
And I was back to my iPhone with its pathetic battery life. So you see, Apple really has no competition and that's why they get away with things.
I have iOS and Android devices. Nothing of worth is stuck on iOS (or MacOS). But iOS is my daily driver. Though I've switched back to Linux for daily work.
I'm happy to mess around with something, but it's definitely great to have a platform that is not so easy to mess up and has great support for the rest of the family. And I'm happy to stay compatible with them.
AltStore lets you run your own app store locally on your own network and push app's to your phone from it.
I am happy with the situation for one simple reason: it just works. I hve to many things to deal with and tinker with elsewhere. I honestly don't want to tinker with my phone.
So don't? People seem to have the idea that in order to use Android effectively you have to rebuild the kernel every week. If you treat a Pixel like an iPhone, it works like an iPhone.
Did... did you even read what I was replying to? I was replying to this, emphasis mine:
--- start quote ---
It's depressing that even on hackernews where you expect people want to tinker and have control over their machines there's a probably a majority who are happy with the situation and use the think of my grandma (aka children) using iPhone situation.
--- end quote ---
No, I don't want to tinker with my phone. So I don't, and as a user I'm quite happy with the situation on the iPhone.