Hacker News Reader

Comment by ngcc_hk | Hacker News Reader

It is a view. But to me it is bias. Not because we must have the apple juice but that we should have an option for users yes users not developers to choose what business model we would be in. The concentration on anti-Apple might be on its pricing model. Not the protected garden one. I do not want the other App Store or side loading for my old relatives who cannot even handle password that well.

You want that why not create competition by strengthen Android. Cheaper, sideloaded and even must have alternatives in App Store and payment. Go there.

View on HN

If your old relatives "cannot even handle passwords", I doubt they will install alternative App Stores or sideload some apps straight from the internet.

On Android, there is usually a setting to allow apps from different sources and additional permissions, you can enable per app (e.g. a permission for Apps to install other apps, which is for example needed by F-Droid).

Also this is not about preferences, but about anti competitive behaviour. Nothing will be taken from you. If you prefer the Apple ecosystem as is, you can keep using it as before, but Apple's competitors should get a fair chance to provide an alternative experience on iOS.

> If your old relatives "cannot even handle passwords", I doubt they will install alternative App Stores or sideload some apps straight from the internet.

What I would worry about more is that someone will help them with the process and they won’t understand the implications – even ignoring the direct scams, an awful lot of family PCs were loaded up with ad/mal-ware due to a grandkid, friend from church, tip from someone they read, etc. I’d especially worry about it going like browser extensions have where someone installs something when it’s not bad but then the original developer sells it for whatever reason and a subsequent owner is more exploitative.

I think the idea of limiting the stores is a good one but it should be regulated like a physical store rather than run by Apple: require the operator to maintain a legal presence with identified executives, get audited for privacy, respond to complaints, etc. That wouldn’t stop Facebook but it’d at least block the lower tier of scammers and make enforcement of privacy laws possible.

> If your old relatives "cannot even handle passwords", I doubt they will install alternative App Stores or sideload some apps straight from the internet.

the text that shows up in the browser console on Facebook.com and other major domains says that you’re wrong.

non-technical users are absolutely capable of copy/pasting some bypass code into the console etc and sending off their credentials to whatever attacker, happens every fucking day

Your parents and other people who cannot learn the basics of new technology need to use devices in parental mod. It is as simple as that. They should not force everyone else to be on their level of needs.

Apple is anti-competitive and practically hostile towards developers so this is not a IPhone vs Android issue. So the "Go back to where you came from" rhetoric does not work.

This is simply wrong on the account that Android exists and plenty of tech-illeterate people use it with very little issues. Most of my extended family uses Android and they don't even know what an apk is.

Absolutely true. And absolutely the cause of:

> Android devices are nearly fifty times more likely to be infected by malware than Apple devices, revealed Nokia’s latest threat intelligence report. According to the whitepaper, Android devices were responsible for 47.15% of the observed malware infections, Windows/ PCs for 35.82%, IoT for 16.17% and iPhones for less than 1%. We’ve compiled a list top three reasons that explain why almost half of all malware-infected devices are running the Google-created platform.

https://www.pandasecurity.com/en/mediacenter/android-more-in...

Nobody would force your relatives to side load. I did not seen Apple users complaining that their parents are too incompetent so Apple should lock down the laptops, I am sure many no technical people use Apple laptops. And if you are a "admin" for your children/parents devices then you can lock them down.

> Nobody would force your relatives to side load.

Theoretical counterexample: “Introducing the Facebook App Store for iPhone users; now the only way to get Facebook.app/WhatsApp/Instagram on your phone, and without any of that pesky app tracking transparency.”

———

(As a disclaimer, I’m personally strongly in favour of side-loading, but I recognise how this will make things worse overall for everyone else)

> without any of that pesky app tracking transparency

That could still be maintained with side-loading though?

If the side-loaded app wants access to the GPS location, then the only way to get it is though the OS Location API which is what presents the Permission Dialog.

The same goes for any other permissions.

As part of the side-loading, any permissions that will be requested within the App could be presented to the user by the OS.

Part of ATT is having a "Nutrition facts label"-style forward disclaimer of what the App might ever request access to, but also combined it with the software vendor's information-handling/privacy policies.

The first-half: a declaration of requested sandbox permissions is a technological problem with a straightforward solution, while the second-half is a soft, squishy, "human" problem.

And yet I have parents that semi tech illiterate and had grandparents that were tech illiterate that managed to not install shit on their devices.

At the same time, malware still manages to sneak into the Apple app store.

The walled garden gives a false feeling of security while at the same time placing in bondage all those even vaguely connected to the platform.

How quickly everyone forgets...

https://techcrunch.com/2019/01/29/facebook-project-atlas/

This is from a long time ago, so please correct me if I'm wrong, but I think the Amazon app isn't on the Android store? I can see how having a single store improves user experience.

However, Apple playing both sides by saying the App Store is beneficial for users and also requiring a large % from developers doesn't sit right with me.

> This is from a long time ago, so please correct me if I'm wrong, but I think the Amazon app isn't on the Android store?

Amazon Shopping has been on the Play Store from at least 2014 onwards [1].

[1] https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.amazon.mSh...

>Theoretical counterexample: “Introducing the Facebook App Store for iPhone users; now the only way to get Facebook.app/WhatsApp/Instagram on your phone, and without any of that pesky app tracking transparency.”

And you have the real world where Facebook did not demanded Android users to enable side loading to install their application, so this is FUD.

Life is much easier after ensuring parents are only using iPhones and iPads and not laptops. It’s not hard to imagine them clicking through whatever they need to do to install malware.

I've had my parents using Android and Windows for years and never once did they install malware. A couple of viruses on Windows accumulated after many years sure but none on Android. I'm not sure where people are getting this logic about this.

It's all part of the continued infantilization of our society. Well-meaning people want to protect everyone from every possible bump on the head, so they wrap the entire playground in bubble wrap (see relevant Simpsons episode).

The level of paternalism is also a positive feedback loop. The more paternalistic we are, the more we need to become because people rely on the guardrails and never learn about the danger. Then at some point they climb the guardrails, assuming that if it was dangerous to climb the guardrails then they would be bigger and less penetrable, more signs and padlocks, etc. So then we make the guardrails bigger. Rinse and repeat ad finitum.

It’s not about forcing, but more about tricking. A classic example is like that: your elder parents got an fishing email with attachment, they tried to open it then it said they need that app to view with a convenient link. Unsuspecting, they clicked on the link then their phone is doomed. Just like a Windows PC.

With santioned App Store, such fishing attempts will fail. And 18 years of continued history proved that the Apple approach works. The iPhone IS the most secure device for the mass consumers.

Yes, I probably will miss my choices. But if that’s a problem, I’ll probably just buy an Android. Or better a fairphone.

But I want a locked digital forest to safeguard my privacy and digital assets. I can experiment with my PCs and other devices. That’s also my choice.

Then campaign for Apple to add a feature that allows you to act as gatekeeper for your and your elderly parents. Don't require everyone else to have Apple act as that gatekeeper for them.

> your elder parents got an fishing email with attachment, they tried to open it then it said they need that app to view with a convenient link. Unsuspecting, they clicked on the link then their phone is doomed. Just like a Windows PC.

The app sandbox, watchdog and entitlements system is still in place in this scenario, how is their phone “doomed”?

Android has had this option for years with plenty of tech-illeterate people using it wither very little issues. It already exists why are we hypothesizing?

Again: 50 times the malware infection rate is “no issues”?

There’s more android malware on the web than windows malware, by a significant margin. Almost an absolute majority of malware in total.

Bigger malware rate than windows isn’t an issue?

Meanwhile iOS sitting at <1% of total malware.

1 Apple sold computers for decades, so all those people then and still using Apple computers survived with side-loading

2 Malware was found on the AppStore

3 Fishing and scamming does not need an app, to fix this you need to educate people.

4 The phones can be secured by default. If you are an "admin" for you familyu then you can keep the "unlock" keys so they can't open the gates.

How is this possible, if the OS is secure and apps are properly sandboxed?

I can visit any website in Safari and expect to be safe, why can't the same be true of apps?

> Nobody would force your relatives to side load.

O they absolutely will. There will be apps that are only available via side loading. These are apps that either a.) would otherwise be forced to comply with the user protections provided by apple's walled garden or b.) wouldn't have a viable business model and wouldn't exist to begin with.

If the app wouldn't exist to begin with, then what does it matter if it's only available via side loading. Don't install it! You obviously don't need it. The alternate option would be that the app doesn't exist at all, so you wouldn't be able to install it anyway.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com