Software Devolution in the Hands of Apple
michal.sapka.me
michal.sapka.me
Depends on the specifics of "you," "nothing," and "anything."
> Wake me up when Linux is ready for everyday phone use, because Google is a poor alternative.
I have UBports (i.e. Ubuntu Touch) installed on an old Pixel for use as a remotely controlled camera, but I don't use it as a daily driver. It's a thick wrapper around Android, though. There's no getting around proprietary hardware, firmware, and drivers.
A little more about UBports...
It's not like you can use /dev/video to use the video camera on a Linuxified phone. Instead, the system is a Debian wrapper around Android, and Android is used to get access to the proprietary device drivers. Those capabilities are then exposed to the Qt-based SDK.
So, to take a picture with the camera every few minutes, instead of running a command on a cron job I had to write a whole [GUI app][1]. Either I manually start the app using the phone's touchscreen, or I think I can launch it in dev mode remotely using tools on my laptop, but the phone still has to be manually unlocked.
To top it all off, there's a memory leak in some camera-related Android service, so the app crashes after a few hours. The bug is allegedly in the Android code, so the UBports maintainers can't do much about it (maybe backport a patch onto the source from which the Android base image is built? Who has time for that?).
For all I know, it's a good phone, but for my hacking use case it's less than ideal.
Still, any old phone camera is way better than the webcams I have lying around.
[1]: https://github.com/dgoffredo/ubuntu-touch-intervalometer
So publish the same app in both stores or don't publish in our store.
Seems reasonable to me.
What's more likely to happen, is that those big apps will simply start to split into two apps. The basic one will remain at feature parity on both stores. Then app mfg will then make a new "Super" or "2.0" app that they'll launch only on the third party store. That'll probably satisfy Apple.
Stores choose what and what not to sell all the time. It's no more anticompetitive than LHVM stores choosing not to sell canned soup or Mercedes choosing to not sell Ford.
Neither of those companies are monopolies and neither of them forbid brands they stock from selling different versions of those products at different stores.
If they really are providing so little value, maybe they could invest in making their platform less shitty or offer better terms? Like, you know, compete.
de-evolution & deevolution aren't words https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/de-evolution
Even with all the racketeering, the developers don't really have a choice; choosing to leave the Apple platform and their racketeering ring means losing out on a huge user base and (potential) profits.
At this stage it would take a "union" of sorts, a bunch of developers of big/popular apps and services to collectively boycott Apple in order for them to loosen their iron grip, but that will never happen because of the aforementioned reasons.
They do have a choice. Developing and supporting an iOS app will take $x amount of money and will have a potential return on investment of $y. If the return on investment is not high enough developers have no reason to release or update an iOS app and should focus on other development, working on something else that will have a greater return.
These users are the same folks who prefer and pay a premium for Apple technology.
If the market had a better product Apple's users would flock to it.
But the market doesn't. And we're left well meaning backseat drivers who insist on "fixing things".
But the consumer doesn't care. Consumers instead are choosing phones based on other features.
Now, what happens on iOS once the 3rd party stores get forced in? Who knows. It'll be fun to watch. Generally, consumers probably won't give a shit. After all, if they valued this feature, they'd purchase a phone with it.
The people who do care generally aren't consumers. It remains to be seen they can can shift consumer behavior.
That said, I think new genre's of apps might be able to provoke a change. Stuff like porn, hacker apps, apps that appeal to niche communities, all that Apple would never allow...If one of those apps becomes super popular, then the 3rd party stores will become interesting.
So, say we get an amazing third party store. And its loaded with world class apps like "AR Butt Plug", "Is that a Jew?" and "SNES9X". Well, new customers might be drawn to Apple's ecosystem that previous weren't customers.
But those are customers and use cases that Apple probably doesn't want.
So, say we get an amazing third party store named F-Ios which is loaded with world class free software like Fennec (non-mozilla Firefox build), TermIos (Termux on Android) and IosPipe (Newpipe on Android). Well, new customers might be drawn to Apple's ecosystem that previous weren't customers.
Imagine the possibilities offered by adding an iOS version of the Android F-Droid repo. That would draw customers which thus far shun Apple like the plague.
> But those are customers and use cases that Apple probably doesn't want.
Unfortunately you're most likely right here in that Apple does not want to give its customers the freedom to choose to evade its toll booths by choosing free software - they want to remain in control.
Yup. Apple is closed and for profit.
This will eventually even out. Look at the gains of Linux desktop. Once the curve of innovation flattened, open source caught up and now delivers I think a superior product to both Apple and Microsoft.
It took 10 years. But it's happening and I think the future looks bright.
I bet we're about 5-10 years away from a viable competitor in the phone space showing up.
Or those who are mobbed into Apple products.