"Allow users to install apps from third-party app stores and sideload directly from the internet"
I bet this is going to be a horrible user experience. "Are you really sure?", "Apple takes no responsibility not warranty" whatsoever.
What sound usually easy on paper...
Sounds good to me. As a techie who maintains several phones for several family members at a variety of tech-literate levels, I certainly hope this experience sucks and is difficult to figure out.
I want a foolproof thin client for myself and all the older people in my life
Complete FUD. Stop fearmongering.
Open up your browser's developer console while on Facebook and you'll see FB's desperate attempt to get you to not start typing in commands.
When Epic got up in arms about Google's fees, they published a sideload-able version of FortNite, and some users ended up installing a fake virus-laden version (https://www.theguardian.com/games/2018/aug/10/fortnite-on-an...).
How many Linux users run arbitrary shell commands they find online while trying to fix or install something? What about some curl command somewhere that downloads and executes whole scripts? And Linux users tend to be very technically oriented.
This is not FUD. We're there. This is happening today.
Just because something is possible doesn’t mean that making it harder isn’t worthwhile. Perfect is the enemy of good, after all.
The Android ecosystem is a bit of a cesspool, but surely even it isn't having major issues with swaths of people having their phone compromised, right? My parents aren't going to sideload an apk.
I have faith that there's a way to do this right.
For example, my dad, who has had decades of internet usage, tried to buy a USB drive that promised to speed up his computer for only $99.
These folks need an app store.
In reality Apple could just implement a dummy mode. I bet a lot of people would decide against that an be completely fine.
You can bet they'll start playing the same games with the EU once this goes into effect. Regulating big tech requires not just passing the law, but a heavy handed enforcement that doesn't put up with delays and antics.
(Basically, I am making a "if a tree falls in a forest" argument)
So what's the downside?
You're forgetting the "no creative geniuses"-clause, aka repeated fines of 10-20% of worldwide turnover.
The cookie banner thing is… unfortunate.
If all you associate with the GDPR is cookie consent dialogs then maybe these discussions are not for you?
> If all you associate with the GDPR is cookie consent dialogs then maybe these discussions are not for you?
You realize that you are the unique one? Most people don't care about abstract concepts of digital privacy and just hit whatever button on that dialog that makes it go away. Who knows what they're opting in to, and they don't really care.
These are definitely the sorts of things we should factor into regulation lest we continue to pave that road to hell with shiny good intentions.
It did not have to be this way.
They're misused by sites. You don't need to show cookie consent if your cookies are purely technical (e.g auth)
If the EU ever actually starts enforcing GDPR, I expect a quick reckoning.