The reason is that the overwhelming majority of such perceptions turn out not to have any evidence behind them, and meanwhile it's one of the things that internet commenters do that most degrades discussion.
I wrote a much longer explanation about this recently: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35932851. There are lots of other past explanations at https://hn.algolia.com/?sort=byDate&dateRange=all&type=comme... if anyone wants more.
Their computers are a mess. No matter what pro-active measures I take, every time I get involved, they have a bunch of nonsense installed doing who-knows-what. Random apps, most of which are running all the time, slogging down the system. The younger folks have different game-stores, or other similar things, all running in the background. The computers are slower than mud.
Their phones are all fine. They may download crap, but I know it is almost impossible for it to mess things up outside of that individual app.
I'm not saying this to completely defend Apple - I honestly don't know which side of the App Store/sideloading debate I fall on. I'm just pointing out that there are huge benefits, particularly for the general population of non-techincal users, to Apple remaining as a gatekeeper (albeit obviously a quite imperfect one).
https://www.pcmag.com/news/study-reveals-googles-play-store-...
https://www.zdnet.com/article/over-half-a-million-users-been...
https://www.tripwire.com/state-of-security/more-malware-infe...
https://www.darkreading.com/attacks-breaches/malicious-apps-...
https://lifehacker.com/great-now-the-apple-app-store-has-mal...
Etc..there were some studies posted about this too
Except that's not what happens. My mom gets spammy magazine article notifications which I offered to help her get rid of, but she actually wants them for some reason.
The befuddled kind grandmothers of the world can just not install/sideload alt stores.
The most common way the elderly get scammed is over voice telephone conversations. Would you suggest we disable the ability to speak over the phone to “protect” them as well?
What actually annoys me are the developers wanting everything for “free”. Look you customer chose to buy an iPhone. Accept it. You don’t like that you have to Apple? Tell your customer to use a web browser. But I feel there is almost no respect from developers to what the users have chosen and why.
I'm not actually sure most customers actually "chose" the iPhone. For many, it's a social construct. Apple creates iMessage, if you want to be able to talk to your friends and be in the group chat or get Facetime calls, you need an iPhone. The Social fallout is large. I wouldn't fully disagree with you if..we were talking about buying a random brand Android phone because you could just buy a different one..but Apple's unwillingness to openness really removes elements of choice.
Then there's this other angle that I think it is weird that you think it needs to be black or white. The default App store will still be the default. You can just use it out of the box as you do. Any solution that allows third party stores would be a setting that would need activation and would probably say, repeatedly "Don't do this if someone told you to".
Then finally, the angle that developers want things for free is wiiiild. Apple actively locks features out of PWAs on purpose, the native feature support is awful. Apple stating that any digital transaction on a phone means they get 30% is a wild world. Imagine a world where Ford cars demand 30% of all tolls or 30% of all drive-thru transactions as it is 'in-car' purchases. Computers never worked like this and it harms users. If apple wants a cut, they should have to defend it with a better product rather than locking people out.
Enforce features being available (NFC for example on the iPhone). PWA is a complete joke - I agree. Enforce feature-parity.
But IMO the argument always boils down to the fact the fees are too high. That is the main driver. And like nobody talks about the fact they are the same as Xbox, PS, Nintendo, Steam because we have more mobile developers who want to make more money. I mean the vast majority of apps should most likely not exist - they are just bloatware (again IMO).
What I think would make sense we do a blanket statement for all stores and devices. Either all or nothing otherwise this is not really a problem on ethics or morality but on just pure profits.
I just recently switched to an iPhone (not quite 2 years ago) after owning Android phones for years. iMessage wasn’t even a thought in my purchasing decision. It’s a great messaging app, but at the end of the day, it’s just a way to send text messages.
If there is side loading forced to be allowed on Apple devices, there is nobody making you leave the walled garden.
My argument is that I have bought a specific device (and everyone else also did) instead of the other device being open. So I have already made a choice. Now you (or someone else) comes in and says: Well all of you obviously want this freedom that you chose not to have in the first place…
Yeah I explicitly chose that and I know many people who made that choice. Because they want the piece of mind vs the sideloading. Again are there phones that allow it? Yes, and people have decided not to buy those. My point is - respect that choice and don’t tell ppl (general public) that they want something because it’s more profitable to the developers.
I do expect a future conversation to go like this:
Scammer: Madam, go into your settings and enable side loading. It will then connect to your bank account and I will…
Now click on the link I sent you to connect so I can help you
Malware installed…
Scammer: Madam, go into your settings and enable side loading. It will then connect to your bank account and I will…
Madam: Okay uuuuh... A big popup came up... It says... That I should not enable this setting unless I really know what I'm doing... And if someone is telling me to enable it then I should hang up the phone!!
No amount of software red tape is going to prevent scammers from sideloading malware on a device of a victim who trusts them. The only realistic way to actually prevent it is to not have sideloading as an option in the first place.
Apple's walled garden has created an Apps market in the same way that governments create markets in the economy: by creating basic rules of conduct and commerce that allow people to feel safe enough to transact.
If side-loading appears I expect a race to the bottom as apps attempt to move people out of the App store and into a progressive web of predatory dark patterns that eventually kills all trust in the platform.
Surely Android is an absolute cesspit at this point then.
I think you over estimate how many people actually utilize side-loading. To your other points, an overwhelming majority will never turn on side-loading if it's added. They will continue to use Apple's walled garden app market. The barriers to even install a side-loaded app will cause most to give up in frustration.
I mean... yes? Like, it's not the bad old days of Windows in the early 2000s, but people demonstrably don't want to spend money in the Play Store and what money they do spend is on big name brands.
If Apple stays the same as it is today, there is nobody making you buy an Apple device.
Don’t get me wrong, I’d like to be able to sideload apps, and I think more competition in the App Store space would be beneficial for consumers. But a lot of the “freedom” type advocates act as if someone held a gun to their head and forced them to use an Apple device for the remainder of their life, and now they can’t sideload apps. If that’s an important feature to someone, there’s a platform that allows that.
Personally, its about pushing back on the ever increasing tide of not owning your own device, and using it as you see fit.
I just can't understand why so many are against a feature that they don't have to use.
Adding sideloading reduces security of a device even if you personally never touch it. There'll be more attack vectors, scams etc that would only be possible with sideloading.
Again nobody has managed to challenge my point that if you want side loading there is another platform you can use. Why does every platform needs to be so open? You wanna tell me there are NO benefits from a closed platform?
I can still side load using my Dev Account so I want a specific app - I’ll build it and have it. Anyone can side load with a dev account so the entire point as I keep coming back is because of the revenue to developers not freedoms.
I don't want another platform. I like Apple's hardware. I think it's really well made and would like to purchase it instead of Samsung phones.
That's all the justification necessary.
> You wanna tell me there are NO benefits from a closed platform?
I wanna tell you that none of these benefits matter if they come at the cost of computer freedom.
That's exactly like I've done, I do tell people that iphones are legacy devices and to buy something else in the future if they want a better experience, I won't port anything on it and discontinued everything I had the appstore.
I'm not sure that answer would make you happy either though.
As for legacy - pretty sure the markets, users and developers will disagree with you
Plus my experience on Android has been terrible. BUT some ppl like it. I don’t go and shit on them and tell them it’s terrible. I write my apps to support Android as much as possible. If there are issues I’d prioritise iOS but that’s because it’s my platform of choice. The same way you have the right. AND that is fine
That's fine then, everyone has their point of view. I've used their platform to deploy the app before I discontinued it to make it Android-only so I do have a real experience on how bad the dev platform is, I'm not just judging randomly.
I also used the phone itself for a year and it was hands down the worst mobile experience I ever had but this is more subjective, unlike the dev experience which I do think is objectively terrible.
I don't want to use a web browser for anything I'd use an app for. The web is and always will be an inferior experience compared to a well-made native app.
I don't want to use Android. Google's Android is so full of privacy holes that nobody really knows how to turn most of the data collection off. Open-source Android is incompatible with standard apps like my local public transit app due to over-reliance on Play Services.
I do like the things you mentioned about Apple but just as I'll use raw credit cards or bank transfers with merchants I trust and PayPal for those I don't, I'd like to do the same with purchases on iOS. Sometimes I'd be happy to pay a premium to know I won't have to go through an arduous process to cancel a subscription, sometimes I wouldn't. I want the choice.
> I don't want to use Android. Google's Android is so full of privacy holes that nobody really knows how to turn most of the data collection off.
It's pretty amusing that you don't see or pretend to not see the connection between the two.
So don't download apps from elsewhere? If an app decides to move away from the App Store there will be competitors jumping in to replace it within days.
It's not working like that with companies with values of trillions that own half of the market.
Yup, different people place the freedom vs security cursor at different spots.
You're clearly a "I'd rather live in a golden cage than use my brain" type, and that is fine, more power to you.
No everyone is like you, thank god.
You're posting this on Hacker News, literally 9 people out of 10 here use their brains for a living. I hope you're keeping that in mind.
If you want the freedom - there are platforms out there. Use those. There is no reason to impose your views on the rest of us. I prefer this level of security vs freedom. When I need the freedom I pickup my Android phone.
The important point here is I have a choice.
Ppl get scammed by phone calls & text messages… it’s an entire industry designed and operating to bypass this brain of yours. And now we are introducing another vector to make it easier. That is my problem with side-loading. The fact that it increases the attack surface for everyone even though not everyone wants it.
Shitty stores that only offer their maker's products (uPlay, Origin, Battle.net) don't need to compete, so their experience is usually crap. Most of those have vanished these days, though.
A person’s iPhone is extremely personal. They spend hours using it. It is practically an extension of their body. Many people sleep next to them. Many people develop a form of arthritis in their thumbs, downward curving necks, eye strain using them. Most people are never more than a few feet from their iPhone, and that’s usually because the device has to be sometimes connected to a wall in order to continue functioning.
Is it any wonder, then, that some people have trepidations about forced changes to how that device functions? Is it a mystery the some people are concerned about how that will impact the development of the device going forward?
Whether you agree with their concerns or not — as I take it you don’t — I think it’s perfectly reasonable that a large contingent of users are skeptical of an outside governing body forcing the maker of a device they depend on to make substantial changes to its operating model.
You call it more user freedom, but more freedom to do what, exactly? What’s your pitch for those who are hesitant?
Nothing will change for you if you don't want it to change. This is only an option for people who want additional functionality. Nobody is forcing freedom or change on you by adding one more hard-to-find option buried in a menu somewhere for people who really want it.
The common concern is that critical software that users depend on will only be released in a way that circumvents the safety mechanisms that Apple employs to prevent the execution of malicious code. Is that fear unfounded?
Even setting aside the malicious code concern, many users don’t want to have to track several different app stores to find functional software. What prevents this from becoming the case?
> Are there any examples of critical software that users depend on only being released in a way that circumvents Google's safety mechanisms?
Chinese Android phones are riddled with spyware.
https://gizmodo.com/android-xiamoi-oneplus-phones-personal-i...
I don't think there's a danger Apple will discontinue the App Store in any region as a result of these rulings.
Yes, either they have a strong sandbox model or they don't and the appstore won't help either way.
> What prevents this from becoming the case?
Same as in real life, you can buy products at different supermarkets...
Most generic stores have everything though.
That's not true. There's always cost, even for a feature that you personally never use. Sideloading opens tons of new security attack vectors and dark patterns, that it's going to affect absolutely everybody eventually.
"I had to do it, now so do you. "
Having a single app store that enforced policies brings consumers peace of mind. I don’t think it’s worthwhile to change that. What will happen is that bad actors will end up having an easier time engaging in shenanigans.
And that's an exhaustive list? Like, in your mind, do there not exist other kinds of people who'd want their iPhone to stay exactly like it is?