> Fucking good.
Seconded. Perpetually baffled by the so-called hackers in all of these threads arguing vociferously against user freedom.
Seconded. Perpetually baffled by the so-called hackers in all of these threads arguing vociferously against user freedom.
Those who argue that forcing Apple to open up their ecosystem is a good thing appear to believe that increased user freedom will lead to more option for all and increase freedom further. Those of us who argue that being forced to open their ecosystem is a bad thing believe (speaking personally) that any user freedom added would quickly be lost and set further back than we started as larger organizations would end up strong-arming or tricking users into giving away their freedom or fear missing out.
Personally I think we all want to see long-term user freedom, and I think whether we expect it to move forward or backward is what differs between us seeing this as good or bad.
You are literally more free if there were no laws about murder but your actual real life freedom would be reduced because you of all the precautions you now have to take.
Apple right now is operating as a de facto governing body forcing developers on the platform to follow its rules that whether or not you like it do sometimes benefit the user against some of the very worst actors. Taking away their ability to have those rules does also take away the benefits users get. And lord knows actual governments, even the EU, aren't going to enforce consumer protections. Whether or not that's worth it to you is fine, both stances are valid but it does logically follow.
Ah yes, we don't trust an actual elected government to enforce consumer protections, so we'll trust a private monopoly instead. In a thread about said government enforcing said consumer protections, no less.
Users are the end customers for apple. For platforms, advertisers are end customers.
All arguments in this thread roll up to -
- You cant have open systems with an advertiser driven economies.
Until people are the end customers for platforms, as ridiculous as it may sound, Apple is the only other choice.
Even MSFT has started inserting ads into Windows. Good grief.
And if the question is of "its only fair that govt gets a say", then its a question of what Govt says fairly.
If your goal is user freedom, then Apple is the only eco system that is actually pro user, compared to the alternative (Android).
In which case, Govt should be tearing into Android/Google and all advertising driven/invasive platforms.
Govt would have to advocate that Android be out of Google's purview, or all mobile OS dev be separated.
The issue isn't Apple. Its Economics.
Some folks are just power hungry and like to wield force unnecessarily.
By definition, A monopoly force does not have a 33% or 50% market share. It has full control.
If you want, you can switch. If you want, you can use products that are NOT locked to a vendor. You have Dropbox, you have obsidian, email - any number of tools that are not vendor locked.
If you want a phone, you can take many of the comparable or superior phones in the Android ecosystem.
This is being phrased as a goal for "User Freedom". If a user wants the freedom to have a locked ecosystem, where they are the actual paying customer, so what?
Any absolutist user freedom argument has to also deal with users who dont want that freedom.
If this is about meaningful freedoms, then the threat is revenue models. There is no reason the Apple ecosystem should outperform Android - yet it does.
I think the optimum would be a well-hidden (like android dev mode, click 6 times on whatever option), but possible sideloading without hacks like AltStore/7-day resigns, etc. Maybe they shouldn’t even allow other stores, just apps - as installing is a very specific permission.
The EU probably has the strongest consumer protection laws. And they do enforce them. Which is the subject of the linked story.
Yes, and when the first order effect is that a giant corporation gets total control over how you use "your" property, you need to be very confident in your predictions to outweigh that.
Personally I think we all want to see long-term user freedom
Apple certainly doesn't.
Worrying about second order effects here considering the current situation is like saying:
We're worried that removing our heel from the throat of the user might allow all sorts of things to go down there, some of which might be dangerous.
Maybe this will happen in some cases but we can be fairly confident it will also help the user to breathe.
But the funny thing is, both of us have the same argument of "I want the cake and eat it too".
> "Why does it harm you to have another app store? If you don't like it don't use it!" > But I want to use Whatsapp / etc! I just want to have the Apple policies protect me from what those apps can do on my phone![]
> "Why does it bother you that Apple sells phones under the condition of 'my app store or nothing'? If you don't like it, buy another brand! > But I want to use the quality of iPhones and iOS!
[] This is what I mean by "middle ground". Today, I """trust""" Apple to protect me (somewhat) against random developers. If there are alternative appstores, but either they must follow the same protection policies from the one from Apple[*] or their apps must also be listed in the Apple store, I'd be happy with multiple app stores. But that would defeat the purpose of other stores.
[*] (eg I must be able to use Apple Pay, the code still goes through Apple review, etc)
Apple is the wealthiest single organization in the history of the world, and they just make consumer electronics. This isn't some deep ecological problem. Very little good has come out of letting these big corporations go completely unchecked.
You mean 'lower', now 'elevate'. Business-grade software is usually a tier below consumer-grade. After all, you only have to convince management on the business-advantages of your software, not the actual users who have to use it on a day-to-day basis. They don't get a vote. That's why business software gets away with terrible performance and UX.
Apple makes luxury consumer items, this shouldn't even be questioned.
Regulate away their ability to do that. Even if it kills them.
Just literally write it into law. Make computer device users a protected class of consumer. Owners of computing devices shall have complete access to the devices they buy and shall not be discriminated against based on the software they choose to run, including but not limited to refusal to interoperate.
Good luck with that. Hardware remote attestation will fail, outing you to the corporations as someone who "tampered" with the device. You'll be refused service based on that alone, from frivolous content consumption to vital banking services.
Things like remote attestation should be illegal.
If you still don't see how it's related, I don't know what else to say.
But guess what, in the real world you do have the freedom to cut your face with an open razor. Still, you don't see everyone using one (unless they know what they're doing), they rather use a safe razor - they have the sensibility.
I find it demeaning that we "hackers" assume that a certain set of people will never learn about safety when it comes to computing. They can (they did with the razor), but they certainly won't when we give up on them.
Also, I don't think the only merit that iPhone brings is this so-called safety, it is also a very well engineered device. I'd like to buy one but the only thing that has held me back is how closed the ecosystem is. If the EU is able to force Apple to fix that, I might finally buy an iPhone for the first time :)
Yes, that would be great, but I don't see how it could happen with current EU laws.
Are you suggesting we ban razors for public safety then ?
In this case, the former is being attacked in order to achieve the latter.
“Own this or you’ll be relegated to the fringes of society” very much sounds like coercion to me.
I’d argue that smartphones are rapidly approaching being utilities and search is way past that point.
User also has the freedom to use whatever he bought in any way he sees fit (as long as it isn't illegal). Or do you consider that something a user shouldn't be able to do?
I feel like we're going around in circles.
Freedom isn't free, apparently.
If there were more than just those two providers (say, 10) we’d likely have at least one option like that.
Similar dilemma.
At least it has end-to-end encryption.
No educated tech people are buying into Apples ecosystem without awareness of the limitations. If this is an issue, why be in this ecosystem at all?
Even then, Steve Jobs could, with a wave of his hand, instantly achieve things tech nerds had been struggling to do for years before: things like make Flash go away or make DRM on digital music no longer be a thing.