Hacker News Reader

Comment by pchristensen | Hacker News Reader

I want Apple to maintain a consistent set of rules that app developers need to follow. I have no power to dictate my desirable terms to Facebook, Twitter, etc, but Apple does. I'm willing to give up some flexibility with my device for that. No matter what, I'm a tiny player with no power against globally powerful tech companies, but I'll take Apple's conditions vs 1) conditions set out by other companies that I trust less, and 2) having different conditions for every company I deal with.

View on HN

That and I want to give my not so technologically literate parents an iPhone and I want it to just work. I want a consistent experience that’ll let me debug their problems from around the world or just feel confident sending them to the Apple store.

Even for a power user like me, I’d rather have an ultra reliable device with amazing manufacturer warranty than something I can hack on.

> I’d rather have an ultra reliable device with amazing manufacturer warranty than something I can hack on.

You can have all three, though. Apple simply stops you from harnessing the true potential of your device because it threatens their bottom line. This is immediately apparent when you realize that any form of sideloading requires a $99/year subscription fee. Absolutely bonkers that they get away with this and people defend them anyways.

AFAIK that hasn't been true for a very long time. You can install apps via xcode for your own phone for free for a while: https://developer.apple.com/support/compare-memberships/

It's distribution that costs money, which makes sense because humans review that you're following their privacy polices etc.

Not all of us are "not so technologically literate parents". Why are we treated that way?

To be honest, I'd be fine with Apple putting an 'unlocked' mode behind a massive warning screen that doing so removes the ability of Apple to protect them from bad actors (with an optional notification system so I know if my parents have been coerced into doing this).

However let's be honest, that wouldn't satisfy Facebook, Spotify, Epic et al because most people wouldn't do this so it wouldn't really help them. Facebook, Spotify & Epic don't care about user freedom, they just want to get the 30% cut back and to track you more than they're currently allowed.

The rules they do have are already inconsistently applied. And the rules they do have don't prevent a whole lot. Most of them are about protecting their moat, keeping people and governments from being offended and them safe from lawsuits. So what's the point?

or apple could just develop an os such that if an app doesnt respect your settings it just flat out doesnt work. this would force facebook to at least make concessions on their app.

There is no reason for walled garden. people can control the system themselves if setup.

Why do Spotify, facebook, and Twitter need anything beyond a web app these days? What does a native app get that helps them monetize? Access to contacts maybe?

The twitter web app is what I use on a daily basis and it’s absolutely terrible. The app experience is vastly superior.

Probably for stuff they shouldn't be accessing. But also IIRC iOS doesn't support PWAs so installing any webapp they would provide in any meaningful way isn't possible there

Reply on news.ycombinator.com