> In my experience, once the issue is framed as 'Google will decide what you can do with your phone' every single person is immediately outraged.
Apple already does this and practically no one is outraged
Apple already does this and practically no one is outraged
Google now pulls the rug on Android which is a whole different story because it used to be open. The whole idea of Android was to be open.
Apple (under Jobs) sold themselves as counter-culture, they used popstars (unironically), and design, to sell the idea that if you were your own person, or followed fashion, then you bought Apple.
I think the goodwill from those days still provides the foundations of their cultural position now. Although they chip away at those foundations.
OpenAI looked like it could follow Google's early model, until it didn't.
Is that really so? Does the average iPhone user actually factor the app store tax into their decision to purchase the device? Or do they just assume that is just how all software works because they have no exposure to software ecosystems outside the iPhone app store
I'm not saying it's not a problem, but I am saying it's not a problem that has caused any problems with any Android user I've ever met.
You are an HN user of some age. You might even be the family IT person. You may well be changing the experience of people in your orbit.
In contrast, my grandfather’s android phone had somehow 3 different SMS apps, all of which must have tried to remove the default app.
I doubt you think some chap living in rural India, has good data hygiene and habits.
As I'm the IT tech support for some family members, I certainly do. A lot less drama and garbage when using Apple products (generally speaking).
I've sysadmined Linux for a living for many moons now, and used to run Linux and then FreeBSD at home, and I switched to Apple for personal stuff during the PowerPC and early Mac OS 10.x timeframe because I did enough fiddling with tech at work and minimized it at home.
I used Linux desktops at work in the pre-COVID era when we still had offices and such. I now use a Apple laptop as I can get Unix-y tools to admin: I spend >80% of my time in Terminal (the rest in Safari and Mail).
This is the narrative for us in developed nations, but the majority of users today are people who were in developing countries and got a mid-tier smartphone to chat with friends and do banking with the same values as Apple users.
The solution should be to provide the tools necessary to preserve as much agency using technology to people who want to. You should also keep in mind the middle tier technical people who need a bit of hand holding. But do not waste your time on the general public because they don't share or comprehend your goals.
The average person is not calculating anything but price, is it what everyone else is using, is it new etc. Very low level calculations. They aren't asking "can I install applications from outside the app store?". Etc.
> They aren't asking "can I install applications from outside the app store?"
I agree. They don't want to. They already can't begin to evaluate app trustworthiness and don't want to have to. And they shouldn't have to. Yet they live in a world where they do. So they lean on reputation, app store filtering, the legal system, and hope.
That's not what the parent was saying. Most people don't have any opinion whatsoever on sideloading. You can go confirm this for yourself by asking a Mac or PC owner how scary it is. Most of them will respond that they genuinely never thought about it, not that they're afraid to consider it. To these people, it's a normal feature of their device that you could never remove.
The parent is lamenting that people don't care about this technology - Client Side Scanning, hardware attestation, Push notification surveillance - all of it is enabled not because of fear, but apathy.
> And they shouldn't have to. Yet they live in a world where they do.
This is fearmongering logic that doesn't really defend the App Store. Putting your faith in a centralized software auditor also requires you to pay attention and stay abreast of scams. It's just a different exploit chain to deliver the same payloads: https://blog.lastpass.com/posts/warning-fraudulent-app-imper...
I suspect that the GP is, as you write, lamenting the lack of attention to the topic.
> This is fearmongering logic that doesn't really defend the App Store
I agree it doesn't defend the app store. It wasn't about the app store at all. It is about the social problem of the persistent existence of people who choose to purposely do others harm. The problem for most people isn't the app store but those who attempt to get exploits and quasi-exploits into the app stores.
I also agree that you still have to be cautious when using the app stores. Are you claiming that the app store controls do nothing to reduce the presence of malicious apps in their stores? The article you link starts by noting that the app was removed the day after that post was made. That is exactly why people feel more comfortable using the app store.
LastPass has been downloaded in excess of 50 million times in the past 10 years. As many as 10,000 users could have installed the app and turned over their credentials to the trojan version in a 24 hour period. If your manual review takes a day to respond, it's already too late at Apple's scale.
> That is exactly why people feel more comfortable using the app store.
Then why does the App Store represent the minority of software sales on platforms like macOS, where users are given free reign to download whatever they want? It seems like users are overwhelmingly uncomfortable sticking to the App Store, if you take their actions and spending into account.
Apathy seems to be the best explainer here. Users don't care about security at all, they are just consuming whatever is put in front of them. That's why social engineering like LastPass works, and it's why you see people ignore systemic backdoor efforts like Client Side Scanning and Push notifications. They might be afraid of getting hacked, but it's plainly clear that none of them care enough to make a change in their lifestyle.
I'd agree if you wrote that most users don't understand security at all, that users aren't really given the tools they need to maintain security, or that exploits are designed to target people's vulnerabilities. You seem to be blaming the victims of motivated (sometimes) advanced actors. Even serious engineers have been phished for NPM publishing access.
I don’t know if we can blame the average person when there is an entire class of people which have almost limitless resources, knowledge and means to execute their agenda. At some point we have to accept we are fighting against an evil and powerful enemy. And that the masses are high succeptible
It’s like being mad at the characters in lord of the rings for succumbing to the rings powers
With Apple customers, a better argument to make is to say that Apple applies a 30% 'tax' on all activity on their phones. That they are being forced to pay more compared to non Apple users in spite of having bought their device fair and square.
99% of the payment activity I do on my phone (buying retail goods, travel arrangements, paying invoices) has no additional cost.
Fair enough. It might not be consequential for you, the fact remains Apple took 30% of every dollar you spent on the app store. This, after you paid a premium for Apple hardware. I'm happy the walled garden with a toll is worth it for you. All I'm saying is, others might not agree with that if they knew. Just look at the push back again tariffs as an example.
The only things I’d really miss on a phone ecosystem is like, game emulation and some more esoteric network data/file management functions. These are things that are almost inherently outside the range of interests for the vast majority of people and the main reason they’re restricted is because they’re so piracy adjacent that it’s basically impossible to extricate them from association with a whole bunch of technically illegal use cases.
Little wonder then, that both the App Store proprietor AND App Store vendors would have an interest in locking those out to maintain the health of that platform as a viable place to run a business through.
That being said I won’t purchase an apple device again if this one croaks
They really want to though. Maybe consider that.
I do not see any indication that Apple wants to get involved in adjudicating payment disputes for physical goods and services. That is high cost, high liability, low margin work. They seem to be perfectly happy letting the existing banks (aka card issuers) handle that, and getting a 0.15% cut for allowing their credit cards to use Apple Pay.
Apple has restricted themselves to being the payment infrastructure for only digital goods, and I assume that is because that is the cheaper, more scalable option.
As a side note, in the US, the proportion of sellers willing to eat the credit card fees has gone down every year, and seemingly at an accelerating pace. I have winnowed down my credit card usage to retail goods/restaurants/travel, because almost everyone else wants payment via ACH/Debit/Zelle/other option that avoids credit card fees, so I would be surprised if Apple would ever want to enter this market, given that even the 2% credit card fee transactions are not able to compete.
Also, you're overestimating the fees. Few apps or services hit the 30% threshold or stay there for long (the fee for subscriptions drops in the second year).
The real problem IMHO is Apple taking a significant amount out of developer pay checks. Users are fine. The impact is on developers.
Apple ran a very successful propaganda campaign where they portray themselves as the protectors and enforcers of a secure environment where users are safe from attacks from the wild internet. See Apple's spin on blocking cookies. Therefore, users of Apple products are conditioned to believe these measures exist for their own personal benefit, unlike Google which is presumed to be motivated to abuse your trust.
I think with Apple in particular, this is the issue. Apple have largely demonstrated that they _do_ often have the users best interests in mind (or at least at some point have had) on the basis that the users are Apple’s primary customers. Yes, Apple lock down iOS functionality but this has often been to deliver innovative features. Users don’t mind that they’re in a walled garden because, they like the walled garden.
This is where Google is a different case. Google’s interests are aligned with mass data collection rather than products people love. Most Google users have experienced how this impacts them negatively at some point, usually with the degradation of their products, and constant advert spam.
Google is an example of a company that the mass majority assumes to be in the wrong. Apple often isn’t.
We understand that, as the saying goes, if you're not paying for something then you are the product.
But less technical people don't consider that, and don't have hoards of technical friends to convince them otherwise. They just think: they using the product, so they're the user, right? We know that's true but it's not the same thing as customer. Most people don't have that distinction in their head.
It's even partially true that Google does want to do things that attracts and retains users, because that's a prerequisite for selling them to advertisers. In my experience, that's an upper bound on the amount of thought most non-technical people would give it.
It seems over the last decade that if you _are_ paying, you are still the product, you're just making more money for the people selling you.
But the “good” king never lasts. They’re always eventually replaced by a despot, and all the power you ceded to the “good” king falls into the hands of the bad king. Which is why ceding that power is a bad idea, and kings are a terrible system of government.
Apple is not perfect, by any means. I recently had a conversation with a former Apple employee about how they employ differential privacy internally. This former employee was upset about Apple's interpretation of one parameter ("privacy budget"), but the fact that we're having this conversation at all is a positive. Google, despite being an early adopter of differential privacy, is on the other side of the privacy spectrum: virtually everything they provide is intended to capture what you do on- or off-line.
I will pay a premium for Apple stuff for this, and other reasons. I do wish they were more developer-friendly, however. Enough so that every time I buy a new computer I have to run through the mental calculus of whether I'd rather fight with the cathedral or the bazaar. I recently bought a new computer and the cathedral won the last round.
A company reveals its priorities when it is forced to make inconvenient choices. What privacy compromises did the CCP force out of Apple in exchange for doing business in China?
Most of the other big tech companies make their revenue from other companies paying them to leverage the influence they have over their users. So they are not constrained in the same way.
I believe that most Googlers are pretty aligned with the principles of the HN crowd, but Google the machine is not.
https://www.reuters.com/sustainability/society-equity/apple-...
I don't want to hear about how this isn't Apple's fault. This isn't the big bad orange man forcing Apple to act against its will; it's a business arrangement between Apple and the president. He gets censorship, they get a weaker EU.
https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/02/defe...