Hacker News Reader

Comment by jerojero123 | Hacker News Reader

This is a very bad argument. The benefit of others, in this case, has nothing to do with your own benefit.

Its true, epic might profit for several millions, so what? How does that affect me or other users?

Apple keeps acting like the user is somehow this baby that needs to be protected, we're not. We're adults that can make our own decisions.

Android and iOS are completely different operating systems, iOS is better for privacy but for example if something like fdroid existed on iOS I could compliment the apps on the appstore with free software one that I know also guarantee my privacy. BTW, open source apps have to go through hoops to be published on the appstore because of their rules and regulations.

View on HN

> iOS is better for privacy but for example if something like fdroid existed on iOS I could compliment the apps on the appstore with free software one that I know also guarantee my privacy.

YOU could do that, but as others have said, the problem is that other people are not going to do that. For the average user, it's a huge attack vector, or let's be honest, it'll be used to pirate apps. The average user doesn't even know what open source is, and when they Goa head and side load some new game because their "neighbors son really knows computers" and their iPhone gets taken over by adware, who do you think they're going to blame? Do you really think they'll go "oh well, that was the risk I took by side loading." or something? Nope. They'll go "Wow, that was terrible. Apple sucks. The iPhone is insecure garbage!" That's exactly what would happen and we all know this.

If anything, perhaps Apple could make an "iPhone 12 - Developer Edition" and only allow side loading in that version... and offer no warranty other than hardware. Keep it out of the hands of Average User but the ones that think they're such power users can buy it.

You shouldn't protect people through forbidding them access. Make it relatively complex? Sure. Explain the risks? Sure. Forbid it? I don't think that's the best solution.

I mean, from a parenting perspective which is kind of the role that Apple seems to be claiming over its user, it's super diminishing. Your whole argument is basically "users are too dumb to deal with freedom". How is that an appropriate argument? We let people vote for a reason, freedom is not something that can be taken away just like that.

This issue to me is much more than just "oh, it's privacy" it's an issue on our fundamental rights of ownership and freedom to do with our devices what we want. The reality here is that Apple has captured the mobile market in the most lucrative country on earth (the USA) and they're ruling over people like a lord on its serf.

And to follow up on what you've said, you can already side load apps on Android and you don't really see any of that which you mention? People aren't saying Samsungs are "insecure garbage" as far as I know. More freedom is a good thing, these devices cost hundreds of dollars; they're computing devices why not treat them just like computers. Do you see people saying macbooks are "insecure garbage" because I don't? And you can install all kinds of apps on it, even from "untrusted" developers.

I don’t think forbidding access is a great solution, but I do think overall the cumulative choices Apple has made do indeed make a more secure device. I wouldn’t call Samsung “garbage” but I wouldn’t choose to use one either.

> Your whole argument is basically "users are too dumb to deal with freedom"

No, it's not.

> you can already side load apps on Android and you don't really see any of that which you mention?

Yes, actually, you do see this! Most of the Android malware is from sideloaded apps, although some of it comes from Google Play itself.

> People aren't saying Samsungs are "insecure garbage" as far as I know.

No, they're saying Android is insecure garbage instead. Just like they'll say iOS and Apple is garbage.

I 100% agree with this.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com