Also known as malicious compliance.
Protect the users from misguided legislation.
This is a non issue.
The real issue… stay with me, it’s a lot of words… is that alternative unreviewed or poorly reviewed app distribution mechanisms open a pathway to pervasive abuse via installation of malicious privacy violating apps onto devices of unwitting targets by people other than the targeted device users.
Even outside of school systems, there is a wide variety of virtual desktop systems where office employees essentially get a fresh install of the OS every morning with their files where they should be — because they can't be trusted to manage a dedicated piece of hardware without adding malware.
For managed Chromebooks, you are incorrect. They are usually configured so that the end-user cannot install additional software, enable developer mode, or set up the Linux sandbox, making them often less useful than Apple iOS or iPadOS devices.
The GGP comment said we should ban PCs [because they're too dangerous for most people to use]. And with Chromebooks or thin clients with virtual desktops, that is exactly what a lot of organizations have done.
None of which you addressed in your knee-jerk response that is about as coherent as "M$" was back in the day (and I did my share of that when I was young and stupid).
You didn't specify managed Chromebooks, but I also didn't know they could be locked down to such a degree, thanks for informing me.
> None of which you addressed in your knee-jerk response that is about as coherent as "M$" was back in the day (and I did my share of that when I was young and stupid).
I honestly don't see why you felt the need to add this last paragraph. Was it "iDevices"? I just used it for convenience. Either way, the snark is totally unnecessary, your comment is better without it.
My comment about "school systems and corporations" did sort of imply "managed"; there's not a public school system in the world that would give their students unmanaged Chromebooks. Some private schools might, but the private schools are also more likely to have it tightly controlled and install spyware because of the "threat of cyber-cheating" (I wish I were kidding: https://www.eff.org/wp/school-issued-devices-and-student-pri...).
My apologies on the snark — it’s too late to edit it, but I read your "iDevices" as snark itself, since most of this discussion has been populated by people who have reflexive anti-Apple stances with exactly no nuance on their stances, so I let my frustration get the better of me. Mea maxima culpa.
No no, when I wrote 'run Linux natively', I meant pure Linux right on the bare metal (on a subset of models). One random hit I got when searching: https://www.ifixit.com/Guide/How+to+convert+a+generic+Chrome...
> My apologies on the snark [...]
No worries, and I realize my comment probably comes across differently than intended when in a frustrated mindset. To be honest, that parting shot took me a bit by surprise, and I was about to respond in kind, worsening the quality of discussion. Thankfully, HNs comment guidelines got the better of me : - )
Many things are possible for a suitably motivated person. But such things are unlikely to be done by your average device user (of any sort), because they don't have such motivation and can't even conceive of why they would bother.
Does Apple need to change things? Yes. But I — and I know that I’m not alone on this — happen to agree with Apple that the DMA changes requested will reduce overall security for customers. There may be worthwhile changes that happen because of the DMA, but the reduced security position is real.
All Apple is doing is protecting their pockets.
Apple losing 30% fee? Money lost for apple is money saved by people.
Why are you so invested in defending that company's shitty practices?
When someone already paid for their device they should be able to side load apps and use other app stores (without apple taking a 10% or 30% cut).
Are you an apple employee, marketer or investor? I bet that 30% cut on every app boosts their profits, but if people own phones they ahould be able to use them whatever way they want. Without apple taking a cut again just because.
To me this only seems to twist the arms of large companies like epic and Facebook. A small malicious app with thousands of installs can exist completely for free.
The app publishers don't have to choose this new pricing. They can stay with the old pricing, if they stay exclusively on Apple's App Store.
The reason Apple wants fewer app stores is that if fewer third party app stores survive, then there are fewer app stores with questionable or lacking review processes out there hosting malicious apps.
Just to make the connection super explicit for completeness, having fewer avenues for malicious apps is a good thing for user privacy.
There are other better ways to do it, like controlling one app store that has only well reviewed apps, but it seems the EU with the DMA left Apple only this bad way.
Apple gets other benefits from controlling the App Store, beyond protecting user privacy, don't get me wrong. Money being one, but not in a greed sense, but more because mostly that money pays the costs of running the development program, which are huge costs involving many thousands of Apple engineering salaries, which in turn enables the app ecosystem that benefits everyone. Another benefit is they can minimize the appearance of bad user experiences on their platform, to protect their brand, which they have invested a lot in and care a lot about.