Hacker News Reader

Comment by nemothekid | Hacker News Reader

>You, as an adult, can choose not to install shady software.

For some reason every Linux user assumes everyone is as smart as they are and anyone who doesn't take the time to learn whatever esoteric config file to manage their DE is a child that can't tell left from right. Somehow the decade of directed scams and proliferation of malware and spyware isn't a problem and it's the developers "right" to be able to turn on your microphone and send that data to the cloud.

When Facebook mandates that to install Instagram you must sideload it from the Facebook store and your entire's family's location is being tracked 24/7 I hope you will thank Zuckerberg for all the freedom hes giving you

>Don't demand that Apple treat the rest of us like children just because that's how you would like to be treated.

You could just not buy from Apple. I never understand how the anti-Apple crowd is convinced that Apple is run by Satan himself, but cannot compel themselves from buying Apple products.

View on HN

To your first point: I find it telling that your main concern with reducing Apple's monopoly power is that it would elevate Facebook's monopoly power. How about we design regulations that mitigate against monopoly power in all its forms? Then there would be viable alternatives to Facebook and all of the sudden their business model based on hostile tracking becomes completely unsustainable because there's meaningful competition that actually respects their users. We don't need to be serfs.

To your second point: Apple exerts influence far beyond their consumers. Even though I'm sure this isn't news to you, I'll still point you toward some interesting articles:

https://proton.me/blog/apple-app-store-antitrust

https://lapcatsoftware.com/articles/unsigned.html

Much of this is invisible to the typical resident of the walled garden, but they actually cause a lot of harm to society because of their market dominance. Anybody with a small child is probably aware of the harmful effects of the "dreaded green bubbles" (I'm sure people will try to counter this point with claims that iMessage is somehow more secure / more functional than other protocols. I invite those people to do some research first. I think you'd be surprised at the gulf between your own understanding of iMessage's security vs. reality).

>Then there would be viable alternatives to Facebook and all of the sudden their business model based on hostile tracking becomes completely unsustainable because there's meaningful competition that actually respects their users.

This assumes my problem is with Facebook and Facebook alone. My problem is with ad-tech and more generally all other developers. I know Apple exersts influence beyond their customers and I'm not sympathetic to developers who cry about Apple not letting them run $program.

What the web has shown is that given a free-for-all platform, users lose and any new technology is used to fingerprint people on the web. Apple has provided an option that, sure is a walled garden, but I can be reasonably confident isn't doing something I'm not interested in.

I'm not sure what "harmful effects" of green bubbles are but I'm sure envy isn't as bad as every ad tech company having an NSA style citizen database.

> I'm not sympathetic to developers who cry about Apple not letting them run $program

You don't have to be sympathetic to developers. By sympathetic to yourself. Apple stifling competition and charging exorbitant rents absolutely harms you as a consumer.

No, it doesn't. I extract more value from Apple's offerings than they extract from me in $$$.

I don't think you're grasping the point of antitrust. This was a common sentiment about AT&T in the 70's; people actually liked them despite their monopoly because they liked having telephones and didn't realize how much better things could be.

Nothing I’ve seen from the major players in this industry (Meta, Epic, etc…), has convinced me that they’re capable of doing better. I do hope I’m wrong though.

I think that's kind of the point. If they have to give up control of the industry it can move in better directions.

I would really love to have at least one competitive product to Apple's. At least one, which I could give my family and not have to worry about them getting scammed out of their payment details. Without having recourse.

Yes, Apple is fricking expensive. Yes, I'd prefer if they would offer something at cheaper price points. Yes, I'd prefer if they were forced to provide better-than-mediocre software. Yes, I'd prefer if there would be access in case things don't work, for me to fix stuff myself and not just shrug and try again. BUT they are still without a reasonable competitor that manages to even meet their bar in quality. And yes, that makes them comfortable enough to behave stupidly and in (more or less) open ignorance of anticompetitive regulations. However making their offering _worse_ is not helping _me_! Demonstrate a similar amount of customer safety and we can talk about mandating that also for Apple. But thanks but no thanks if the best we can hope for is AndroidII

>Apple stifling competition and charging exorbitant rents absolutely harms you as a consumer.

Please point to me where these harms are.

It's not about the user - it's about developers getting to do whatever they want. It's about _developers_ complaining that they can't use whatever APIs to track me. This is the same thing Facebook says when Apple rolled out opt in tracking. It was stifling facebook and it harms the facebook user experience. Can you give me an example how as a _user_ I am harmed? Replace facebook for anyone of your favorite DMPs.

Where is this competition on Android? Surely on Android there is a robust market of apps that aren't an exercise in how much fingerprintable data can they siphon off? Is the harm that I can no longer sell my data for a free flashlight app? Or is it just handwaving "harms"? It just seems on Android, there is no stifling of important industries like mobile location data.

> It's about _developers_ complaining that they can't use whatever APIs to track me.

No its not. Dont just make up stuff.

> My problem is with ad-tech and more generally all other developers.

Perhaps without Apple taking the 30% cut, and with the possibility of new app stores that are designed differently from the current App Store, the economics of mobile apps might shift so that there could be third party app stores that cater to users willing to pay for apps up front.

Rather than the current situation that is a race to the bottom as the majority apps are free or freemium, supported either by that intrusive adtech or by in-app purchases that range from subscriptions to outright scams or loot boxes.

> users lose and any new technology is used to fingerprint people on the web

User data tracking is also of great concern to regulators. I doubt they will sit still while third party app stores collect user data. Those app stores will still be subject to regulation, even if it's not Apple's own oversight.

>the economics of mobile apps might shift so that there could be third party app stores that cater to users willing to pay for apps up front.

>supported either by that intrusive adtech or by in-app purchases that range from subscriptions to outright scams or loot boxes.

This is like some cruel joke. Developers constantly making the claim that the 30% is too onerous and some future system will have some pass savings onto consumers. Please point to any proof that the future would be this way. 3rd party stores exist on Android _today_, and I don't see any thing you talk about. In fact what I do see are developers, like Epic, pushing their stores so they can charge you whenever you want for vbucks. Like where is this software utopia on Android if it's so important? Instead, android shows that these changes are potentially more user hostile.

Developers pretend its about making things better for users when its about making more money for them.

>I doubt they will sit still while third party app stores collect user data.

My friend, they are sitting still _now_, when supposedly GDPR was to fix all this. They are rushing to "open up" the one platform that pretends to care about user privacy

> Please point to any proof that the future would be this way.

Please provide your own proofs that the future would not be in this way. Prior to this change, the 30% cut was mandatory. Tomorrow, it won't be only the game in town. That alone shows that the future is at least one step towards a different app economy from the status quo. That alone changes things.

> 3rd party stores exist on Android _today_, and I don't see any thing you talk about.

But it opens up the opportunity for such a thing to arise. Someone can choose to create an app discovery platform like AppGratis or Chomp, to create new app catalog perhaps more targeted and organized than the current sprawl that is the existing App Store. The point is this change allows the possibility to arise, as well as the economics to shift. At the very least, this will lead to disruption of the status quo. That will breed opportunity and innovation.

> Instead, android shows that these changes are potentially more user hostile.

How have third party app stores made things any more hostile on Android? There is literally no competing Meta user data collection ap store there.

> Developers pretend its about making things better for users when its about making more money for them.

Users need developers, as much as developers need users. Anti-developer sentiment is puzzling. If you want Apple to build everything themselves, then close the platform entirely, allow only web apps (as Jobs intended), and let Apple Sherlock the entire App Store.

> My friend, they are sitting still _now_, when supposedly GDPR was to fix all this. They are rushing to "open up" the one platform that pretends to care about user privacy

GDPR was just the start, and further regulation on both sides of the Atlantic is in progress. Do you really think of all of this was meant to attack Apple specifically? Big Tech is under the crossfires by multiple regions, multiple nations, multiple political parties.

> Developers constantly making the claim that the 30% is too onerous

This one is honestly difficult to respond to. I encourage you to donate 30% of your next paycheck to charity. It would be a good deed and would illustrate for you how much 30% is in a better way than I ever could.

> Please point to any proof that the future would be this way

Another stumper. I don't usually claim to have proof about the future. I suppose you'll just have to use common sense here.

> Instead, android shows that these changes are potentially more user hostile

This I just find confusing. Where is the hostility in offering users choice? If your whole point is that nobody would use a 3rd-party app store, then why does this regulation even concern you in the first place? You don't have to use one! Just stick to the App Store and let other people do what they want, then thank them for providing the competition that ends up forcing Apple to lower their fees.

> Developers pretend its about making things better for users when its about making more money for them.

Actually, it's about competition, which is indeed something long considered essential to a healthy economy.

> My friend, they are sitting still _now_, when supposedly GDPR was to fix all this.

Ok, I'll come clean. I work for a big tech company. We had to overhaul a ton of services to comply with GDPR and I honestly believe our customers are better off because of it. GDPR did not magically fix all the problems in tech, but it's a big improvement.

> the one platform that pretends to care about user privacy

This level of cynicism is just so difficult to navigate. Are you saying Apple can or cannot be trusted? I much prefer to enable fair competition so that the best platform can actually emerge. Whether that's Apple or not, if users value privacy and the market is fair, they will be able to find it.

> Instead, android shows that these changes are potentially more user hostile.

More than a decade using Android, and another decade using the then-free Internet before that, I have never thought that having more choice was ever, ever user-hostile.

The proposition is so delirious for anyone who lived the early phases of the Internet that it defies interpretation.

The early years of the internet might as well have been a totally separate system. How anyone can think that the modern internet is anything like the small implicitly trusting internet of yore compared to the globalized commercialized ad-tech megamall where every single avenue for abuse is taken and just called a business model instead of malware.

It wasnt a totally separate system. Getting scammed was easier than today because people had a lot of trust in everything.

1. Who talked about Linux?

2. Who said spam isn't a problem or that this act allows or even enforce to circumvent the strong privacy rules that the EU (not Apple) actually guarantees for their biggest single market in the world?

News flash: you can combat spam and scams while keeping open and exchangeable basic infrastructure, without any walled garden. Otherwise, following your logic Apple would need to ban access to protocols like IP instantly, as those can be used to transport spam and exchange openly information.

People rather argue that the safety excuse is BS and people do not require being a Linux expert to detect spam, that they can also get over the landline or in person knocking on the door, for that one needs common sense and some not completely bad education.

I don't know why you've decided to focus on confidence scams, it's like you are intentionally trying to dodge my point.

>Otherwise, following your logic Apple would need to ban access to protocols like IP instantly

But they _did_. The browser engine is another walled garden. HTTP is one of those "open protocols" that has been rife with spyware, but for some reasons people don't tend to cry as loudly when Apple banned third party cookies.

>that they can also get over the landline or in person knocking on the door, for that one needs common sense and some not completely bad education.

I enjoy looking forward to you educating people not install Instagram. I don't know why people continue to assume the bad guys are blackhats or script kiddies. The company that stands to benefit the most from this is the company that lost nearly 400 billion dollars when Apple decided to curb fingerprinting.

That is 400 billion reasons they have to push you to sideload. You really think you can just tell people to exercise "common sense" against someone who stands to gain $400B?

Again, to circle back to Linux, you are displaying the same kind of hubris that developers have when it comes to software. It's a refusal to have any empathy for actual users - telling people not to install Instagram from the FB App Store because it's "common sense" is asinine. FB will spend $1B convincing your doctor that the FB App Store will cure cancer; how is a normal person supposed to combat that with "common sense".

Third party cookies are far from being required by spam or scams and that's actually an example how one can make platforms safer while keeping them open and exchangeable, as for that 3rd party cookies ain't needed at all and it's not a tech to prop up their garden's walls.

  > I enjoy looking forward to you educating people not install Instagram.

I never said anything about not installing Instagram just like I didn't argue those people should add doors or landlines to their houses ;-) So please, just stop it with propping up and taking down all those straw mans nobody talked about!

Rather, think common sense with a sexy lady offering their hot single friends to you, or some person offering you 10 million bucks as long as you can cover the small transaction fee of $1000, independent of the medium its send over (whatsapp, instagram, telegram, fb, irc, matrix, mail, ...)

And w.r.t your general suggestion that all devs just don't care about their users, it's anecdotal but personally I actually care a lot about UX and to offer users the information to allow them to make the right decision, that's one of main things I look out when reviewing UI or also API (as API users, even if developers themselves, are user too) patches, and I know quite a few other devs that try to do the same, not all "hate" their users.

> FB will spend $1B convincing your doctor that the FB App Store will cure cancer

Besides the point that they don't, that's again a complete straw man, nobody talked about that the FB app itself is a scam or evil or whatnot, it may even be, but that's not the point of the whole EU Act and your defense of Apples walled garden mechanisms like banning other payment providers, which still can and must be vetted to be even legal in the EU, or virtually breaking sharing of your data to other apps, that they can still vet and ensure basic security on.

>Rather, think common sense with a sexy lady offering their hot single friends to you, or some person offering you 10 million bucks as long as you can cover the small transaction fee of $1000, independent of the medium its send over (whatsapp, instagram, telegram, fb, irc, matrix, mail, ...)

>nobody talked about that the FB app itself is a scam or evil or whatnot

You are continuing to miss the point. It's not a strawman if you are ignoring my concern. Instagram _is_ the concern. I don't care about confidence scams; my problem is Facebook, and the rest of adtech in general building massive databases on everyone else. The EU has been toothless in preventing this; and adtech is so entrenched that this will likely remain the case.

"Opening" the platform is only good for developers, not for users. Opening the platform just means more ways for users to track me and others around me. This is not a strawman; this is literally apple's marketing on what a platform like their offers. For you to just ignore the problem that platforms like Meta propose is naive. Again I don't care about nigerian prince scams; that is not why I tell people to buy an iPhone.

> Besides the point that they don't, that's again a complete straw man, nobody talked about that the FB app itself is a scam or evil or whatnot

The thread you're responding to used the Instagram app and a probable "Facebook App Store" as examples. You can't ignore a point of contention and just say "well no one said anything about that".

> People rather argue that the safety excuse is BS and people do not require being a Linux expert to detect spam, that they can also get over the landline or in person knocking on the door, for that one needs common sense and some not completely bad education.

This ignores human nature and reality. People are easily manipulated at scale, and the proof is that the scams and spam calls continue. If it was a matter of "common sense" then those things wouldn't be as prevalent as they are.

> For some reason every Linux user assumes everyone is as smart as they are and anyone who doesn't take the time to learn whatever esoteric config file to manage their DE is a child that can't tell left from right.

Notably, most of the non-technical users I am acquainted with manage to use Windows, which will also let you install any software package you want if you click continue on the warning.

Yeah, and that goes very well doesn’t it? That’s why users end up with tons of spyware and bloatware. And if they don’t, they might not be as non-technical as you think.

Lots of the free apps and f2p games on the apple app store could be described as spyware and bloatware, so I fail to see your point.

> That’s why users end up with tons of spyware and bloatware

We are not in 2010s. That does not happen. And when that happens, its because the users explicitly chose to do it in order to access certain things.

Hm, why does my mom call me every few months for help with her Windows laptop, then? She never needed help with her phone, since she tossed the Android one for my old iPhone (ok, actually once, but that was a faulty charging cable)..

I don't know, why do generalizations sometimes fail on specific anecdotes? My relatives need help with iPhones and Windows devices about equally.

I see a lot of Apple fans make unsubstantiated claims that Apple's restrictions on its ecosystem is effective in stopping spam, malware, scams, etc... I have yet to see any data to back this up.

What kind of data are you looking for? Static analysis and Apple-signed binaries tied to developer profiles prevent the vast majority of abuses.

For example, it’s possible to modify the Mach-O link loader on a compiled app like DoorDash to use a fake Apple Pay API that steals credit card numbers. But it’s very difficult to get that scammy app installed on an unsuspecting victim’s device. And it’s impossible to upload to the App Store. Third party App Store? No problem.

tiktok sending your data to the CCP...

Can you elaborate on how that will be prevented by the Digital Markets Act?

?? how is Apple preventing this right now?

?? I never said they were

> Apple-signed binaries tied to developer profiles prevent the vast majority of abuses.

More unsubstantiated claims

> Third party App Store? No problem.

Nonsense.

Giving people choice does not mean opening the floodgates to malware. You can disable sideloading apps by default, but also enable them upon explicit user request. You can call it a "I'm a responsible adult" button.

You don't need walled gardens for this. A sensible safe default with a pathway to disabling it is sufficient.

You can't restrict choice for everyone just because a couple of tech-illiterate folks might make bad choices. It's silly and soon also illegal.

I just gave you a fairly straightforward and realistic method of malware injection into an app. Signed binaries prevent me from re-uploading the malware. What is unsubstantiated here?

And despite repeated claims of the loud and ignorant, you can side load to an iPhone without jail break. it does require a mere $100 a year and handful of terminal commands, but possible if you’re determined.

I’m willing to belabor your last point: the floodgates can open if all the restrictions are relaxed. One very dangerous system call[0] stands between Webkit and your choice of any browser engine. It’s not clear to me on a technical level if allowing that freedom to exploit by one app prevents any app from exploiting.

[0] https://developer.apple.com/library/archive/documentation/Sy...

> I just gave you a fairly straightforward and realistic method of malware injection into an app

Now provide the statistics for it.

Statistics for a thing that’s currently impossible due to Apple’s current policies?

Apple loves to claim that Apple is more secure, without offering any data to back it up.

> I just gave you a fairly straightforward and realistic method of malware injection into an app. Signed binaries prevent me from re-uploading the malware. What is unsubstantiated here?

You have not demonstrated that this is a serious and widespread problem. People have been sideloading for years without getting overrun with malware.

I don’t believe you’re arguing in good faith because you ignore my responses and keep repeating the same demands for data. Is there any data in the universe that could wobble your staunch view a little bit? What would that data look like? I digress.

I use both platforms daily. I’ve been working on smartphones since they’ve existed. I live and breathe them. Android has some great upsides, but security is definitely not one of them. Six years ago at a previous employer we had cardboard boxes full of completely bricked android phones from the Triada Trojan.[0] I have never seen anything like that on an iPhone. I can’t even recall witnessing a bricked iPhone (sans hw failure), but I won’t deny the possibility.

[0]https://www.google.com/amp/s/usa.kaspersky.com/blog/triada-t...

Just a cursory search shows things haven’t improved much since:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32154294

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32084635

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23027184

> You can call it a "I'm a responsible adult" button.

Apple even have the copy for it signed off by Steve Jobs.

“Are you sure you want to open the application ‘Monkey Ball’ from the developer ‘Sega’?”

https://embed.documentcloud.org/documents/21043913-2008-may-...

https://www.theverge.com/c/22611236/epic-v-apple-emails-proj...

> When Facebook mandates that to install Instagram you must sideload it from the Facebook store and your entire's family's location is being tracked 24/7 I hope you will thank Zuckerberg for all the freedom hes giving you

How will the Instagram app evade iOS's security measures if it's sideloaded?

Doesn’t go through app review when it’s side loaded, so it can have features that go against the ToS or app guidelines

I think you misunderstand what the sandbox of the operating system does. An app cannot start tracking you 24/7 just because it's sideloaded.

DJI already does this with their Android app. The play store version doesn't work so you need to sideload something from their website.

No idea what they're doing with the data but there's no other way to fly your drone.

> You could just not buy from Apple.

The hardware scene is, in practice, quite monopolistic. This is especially true nowadays that Apple’s chips are vastly outcompeting others. I don’t know if this is because of some nefarious schemes or not, but even if it is a natural monopoly, it’s still a monopoly that might take years to be undone.

There is no reason to extend this hardware monopoly to software as well though. Apple can enjoy their great margin on their hardware, without also controlling everyone’s most intimate devices.

Oh yes please, I would love to see Facebook do that. They're already in hot enough water with GDPR, doing this would absolutely nuke them out of existence in the EU.

I know it's a complicated concept to understand, but we have multiple sets of laws that are aimed at punishing exactly what you're saying. The DMA passing doesn't mean ePrivacy or GDPR is gone.

So demand regulation against the tracking. Demanding everyone spread their butt cheeks to Apple because you like something that someone else could do is nonsense.

Then... stop using Instagram?

Build operating system level controls that function regardless of app source?

Just build my own operating system, ok.

Facebook isn't forcing Android users to install their apps from an alt store so that point is moot

Facebook doesn't need to; as far as I'm aware Android has done nothing as drastic as Apple's tracking opt-in. Android is already open enough for Facebook to do whatever they want.

If you're browsing the web version of Facebook, the banner to install their app links directly to an APK, not Google Play.

"Better with the app" shows in a bunch of places alongside a "accidentally broken" suggestion bar whose "X" doesn't work.

Messenger refuses to work on the web and requires you to download the app, unless you pretend to be a desktop browser.

Source: I refused to install Facebook's app while on Android and had to use the intentionally slowed-down and crashy web version. (on a flagship processor)

> If you're browsing the web version of Facebook, the banner to install their app links directly to an APK, not Google Play.

Can you please show me how you managed to make this happen? I just browsed to Facebook and the top banner takes me to the Play store.

I would be VERY surprised if facebook forced users to go into the special apps access settings page and enable installing apks. That's a power user feature.

If you're browsing it for a while (recurring use), it starts suggesting "Facebook Lite" and links to an APK to install, instead of Google Play. This was on Android, on a Pixel 2, but since then I've switched to iOS last year so I can't reproduce it right now.

This isn't the case, there's 0 chance Facebook redirected people to instructions to pull this off

Reply on news.ycombinator.com