Hacker News Reader

Comment by isodev | Hacker News Reader

Let's put on my "end user" hat for a moment:

> Firstly the 60% have chosen iOS

Have we really made an informed choice or did I just go into a store to "buy a phone". I don't recall a booklet with each device what you can and can't do on it? e.g. iPhone "can't play Fortnite, Apple temporarily doesn't like Epic" would have been a good warning.

> They are not "hostage" they can leave

I think if you try changing ecosystems today, you will realise it's a very painful process. Apple and Google don't interoperate, don't follow standards (or just invent their own) and there are aspects of both ecosystems that are closed so no "move my stuff" app can ever be smooth and feature complete. Also, how do I convince my family and friends to switch so we don't downgrade to a green bubble situation.

View on HN

It's been close to 20 years since iPhone shipped. None of these restrictions are new.

There are pros and cons to any consumer choice. I think users are well informed an making their choice explicitly.

Yes, both eco systems employ lock-in and network-effects to keep customers. And yes that is an issue (separate from the app store issue.)

It may interest you to know that outside the US (and some parts of Europe) Apple has a smaller network share and people avoid the green bubble effect by using alternate messengers (mostly WhatsApp).

There are -choices- which you may or may not like. In the US folk have largely -chosen- to use iPhones despite Fortnite.

> None of these restrictions are new.

What's new is that Apple/Google now effectively control our lives. Their presence is everywhere.

And so yes, in this case it really matters what happens in every ecosystem. These corporations are effectively dictating policy for how my life is supposed to work, although nobody elected them, there is no oversight. I live in Europe, so both Apple and Google are really an ocean away in terms of mindset and values.

How are they controlling your life? How are they dictating how your life is suppose to work?

By controlling which apps I can install and how I can pay for things.

I have a possible workaround for the "how can I pay for things" part: don't use Goopple wallet, carry a card (and maybe some cash)?

Tap to pay is your phone emulating an iso14443 smart card, which is what a contactless bank card is. Carrying a card is of course another thing to carry, but on the plus side they don't need charging every 24h and they won't be old tech next year when the iPhoxel n+1 incrementally better edition is released.

All apps on the App Store force you to use Apple's payment methods, and all apps on the Play Store force you to use Google's.

Yup. I lost all respect for Apple's arguments that they should be allowed to gatekeep after they colluded with Google and Twitter in blocking the Parlor app right as it started to take off.

> eco systems employ lock-in and network-effects to keep customers

Much of the lock-in often comes from deep eco system integration which is also good for the user in many cases.

So you bought an iPhone 20 years ago as your introduction to smart phones and whenever you visit the topic of switching you learn that your apps don't go with you, it won't work with your apple devices, and it's a pain in the ass so you abandon the idea altogether. Such choice!

The “everybody other than me is too stupid to make decisions for themselves” argument is not very compelling, especially when you have to curate the hypothetical model of stupidity to fit nicely with your stance on the topic.

The vast majority of people don't use ad blockers.

I think the argument of "people usually make zero consideration about what software choice is best for them" very much holds.

Your typical user understands perfectly well that iPhones don’t support 3rd party distributed software. This has been a well publicised fact ever since the iPhone was first released. When it was first launched one of the most well publicised talking points about it was that it didn’t support flash. Trying to claim that this isn’t well known is borderline gaslighting.

This claim you’re making here though is far more insidious. Who are you to decide what software choices are best for other people? I doubt most people care about ad blocking at all. But you think a persons right to make their own software choices should be restricted just because you think this is important? Why should anybody have any regard for what you think?

I don't claim that people don't know of alternatives existing. I don't think the reason adblockers aren't more widely used is people not knowing about their existence.

I also don't believe your implicit claim of people prefering watching ads over using an adblocker. I believe the vast majority of people would prefer a browser (or other software) that blocks ads over one that doesn't.

So if people know about adblockers and prefer not watching ads, why don't they use adblockers?

Because most people do not want to invest even a few minutes in finding the best option for them. They simply choose the default configuration of the software they have always used (e.g. Windows) or that they were introduced to by ads (e.g. Chrome).

I do believe that most people are capable of making the best decision; I don't think most people are willing to make the best decision.

People who aren't heavily into the topic will usually go with the default option. And that option is usually the worst.

(This isn't limited to software. There are many non-software products where I will chose the "default" option, too. Simply because I don't care about figuring out what the best option is for me. I will simply use the default: If it works, it's good enough. But I recognize that by doing so I, too, am promoting markets that are not trying to compete on product quality, but simply their marketing/advertising and the attention they get.)

> I do believe that most people are capable of making the best decision; I don't think most people are willing to make the best decision.

The error you’re still making, and the source of the massive level of arrogance in this statement, is presuming you know what’s best for people.

Firstly, there’s plenty of things in my life that I have no interest in learning how to optimise, and this is the best decision for me, because I get what I want, and I don’t waste my time on something I don’t care about.

But even if I did suddenly take an interest in optimising one of these things, I’m sure as hell not going to do it based on your preferences, or the preferences of anybody other than myself.

Going through life assuming you know what’s best for everybody is not only incredibly arrogant, but it’s also incredibly dangerous. Because it naturally leads to you wanting to start making decisions for everybody else as well, and the idea that they might want something different to what you want doesn’t even seem like it’s conceivable to you.

> the source of the massive level of arrogance in this statement, is presuming you know what’s best for people.

So it's ignorant for them to say it, but correct and well-reasoned when Apple says they know whats best for people?

This is exactly why they're going to get legislated. You and Apple can maintain whatever weird interpersonal relationship you percieve while letting others sideload too. It's already happening in some parts of the world. Your ivory tower hasn't crashed-down yet; it's all just been fearmongering and whataboutism from people with $AAPL shares weighing down the perceptive part of their consciousness.

I agree that going through life trying to make decisions for people is a bad idea; that's why I reject the Play Store on Android and use F-Droid for better software. You should be allowed to do that on your iPhone; Apple is making your choice for you in an attempt to force you through their payment services. If that's not illegal bundling, then nothing is.

Apple never claims to know what’s best for people. I’d presume they do their best to anticipate what people want, turn that into a product, and then people are free to either buy it or not. What you’re suggesting in this comment is that people shouldn’t be free to make that choice.

Your comment about payment services illustrates this perfectly. For starters, you're not forced to use it at all. Out of all the paid services I use on my phone, exactly none of them require me to pay via the App Store. I do however choose to use it for every single one of them, because the Apple App Store is by far the most consumer friendly subscription manager I’ve ever seen.

Can’t wait for the corporate lobbyists to take that choice away from me…

> Apple never claims to know what’s best for people.

"Buy your mom an iPhone." - Tim Cook https://www.theverge.com/2024/3/21/24107676/buy-your-mom-an-...

> What you’re suggesting in this comment is that people shouldn’t be free to make that choice.

I am suggesting that people in other countries are already making that choice, and it hasn't even remotely impacted your or their freedom. In fact, users that live in countries covered by the DMA have more freedom to use their iPhone than ever before.

> When it was first launched one of the most well publicised talking points about it was that it didn’t support flash.

> Trying to claim that this isn’t well known

Well known by who? I know about it, you know about it. Look where we are and what we read.

If I ask my friends if they knew about this, the first thing most would say is "What's Flash?"

Many of them would say the App Store shipped with the iPhone on Day 1.

We are in a bubble, and it's not gaslighting to point that out.

> But you think a persons right to make their own software choices should be restricted just because you think this is important? Why should anybody have any regard for what you think?

This is always the argument peddled out, like "now you'll be forced to use these things". You like the Apple way, then keep doing that. I like the Apple way and will keep doing it. It's weird for you to describe being given additional options is having something 'forced' upon you, or that your choices are being 'restricted' by having additional options now. Now that is getting to some 1984-ish language games.

I don't use an ad blocker, not because I'm not aware of them, but in order to support the creators of content I view via ad revenue, and to avoid installing a potential MITM vector directly into my browser.

If there's a site with a really bad ad experience, such as audio playing video ads with audio, constant pop-overs, or using an ad vendor that allows ads to redirect or run super-heavy scripts, I simply stop visiting.

Short term, sure, blocking ads would be in my interest. Longer term, having content producers I'm interested in be able to get paid, and thus be able to continue to produce content is in my best interest.

Installing software that puts me one malicious update away from surveillance and/or credential theft, however unlikely, is not something I want to do. Perhaps there are protections against such things in the browser, and perhaps there are workarounds against those protections. Keeping up with the latest security status of browser plugins isn't something I want to invest any time in doing, and not something the majority of people would be able to do.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com