4 ms·

Because their target audience is not always power users. They need to protect those who don’t understand the difference between app and virus. There is a peace

Because their target audience is not always power users. They need to protect those who don’t understand the difference between app and virus. There is a peace in knowing that anything comes from the app store will be safe and free of malice.

enriquto 7y ago
> There is a peace in knowing that anything comes from the app store will be safe and free of malice. Roman peace in this case. Congratulations on your two cents towards enabling totalitarism.
- derefr 7y ago
  Is wanting my mom to not be presented with the option of installing malware on her phone (which she will do, and then later ask me to remove), totalitarianism? Let me ask a similar question: is preventing con artists from contacting the elderly with varying degrees of cognitive decline (i.e. people who would easily be tricked by them), totalitarianism? Maybe when it’s the government doing it, but how about when it’s a feature of some, but not all, phones? Apple isn’t a monopoly†. You buy into their curated walled garden, by choice. Just like you see a movie by choice, or enter an art gallery by choice. At that point, you are intentionally handing control over your experience to the person or organization who curates the experience. But you can always revoke that control: just leave the ecosystem. Analogy: City parks exist. National parks exist. National wildlife preserves exist. The former does not preclude the latter. If you visit the former and don’t like the curated nature of it, you can always leave, and go visit the latter, where things are less curated. But there is value and functionality in the curation of a city park. For one, you can take small children and pets to city parks and not have to watch them very hard. († If something is a monopoly, such that it’s hard to avoid using it, then this argument doesn’t apply. Facebook, for example.)
  - salawat 7y ago
    I get where you're coming from, but you do need to realize that short of the Librem phones that only recently came into production, there was no non-city park unless you were a developer. Case and point. I did not burst from the womb computer-savvy. I had to learn. Part of that was supported by the fact there were not highly technical barriers to entry in regards to expanding my computational toolset. Getting something working on Android and iOS on the other hand, is over and again more complicated. I can at least side-load to Android, but I must understand Sal and encryption enough to grok code-signing. That is not a trivial barrier to entry. For iOS, I essentially have to sign up as a member of a registry in order to even get something on the phone/tablet for development purposes. My love of computing and figuring out how things work carried me to where I am today; but the high degree of friction that is increasingly implemented for no other reason than being good for business presents a form of computing that I'm still amazed anyone partake in as a pastime at all. Hell, Android is specifically set up to prevent you as a User from doing anything you would conventionally do as a User of a computing system. It is very much a computing platform for the developer's and not the user's benefit. It's a precarious balance to maintain admittedly, but what Apple has illustrated through their actions is that their Phones and AppStore are meant as an extension of themselves to do business first, and to be useful for what you deem fit second. Even if Hong Kongers ended up getting developer accounts to run the safety app, Beijing is well within their authority to use that list of "developers" as a basis for a crackdown by demanding Apple hand it over as a condition of doing business. I can understand the luxury in just being able to get your Gram a mobile phone and not have to worry so much. I worry even more at the consequences in store a few generations down the line where the bunch of we Free Software nutters who remember what flying by the seat of our pants as root, damn the torpedoes, are not guaranteed to be around for to protest when increasingly large and entrenched models of proprietary software distribution networks and OS architectures lock users out of even being able to leverage honest-to-God General Purpose Computation. The more decisions are left to the industry and supply chain, the more rights will be lost by the wayside in the name of doing business.
- pmarreck 7y ago
  Hyperbole much?
behnamoh 7y ago
That's actually another approach some have on the meaning of the word "free" in the computer world: free of malicious software, without virus/malware/Trojan/bot/worm/etc., free of endless searching for the right app to do the job, free of complicated procedures and user interfaces, etc. And if these mean that the company (Apple in this case) must impose certain limitations on their software (and hardware), then so be it. People are always free to choose which product they want to purchase and for the majority of Apple's users, it seems Apple's definition of freedom has been more appealing than that of the others. It's not like people are not aware that buying an iPhone brings with it some "quirks" (remember you couldn't send/receive files by Bluetooth on iPhone, or in the beginning, third-party apps were not even allowed on iOS, ...). Disclaimer: I'm not defending Apple here. Just saying that I understand their reasons.
driverdan 7y ago
Installing your own software is not a power user thing, it's how computers have worked since they were invented.
- ethbro 7y ago
  Hence why mobile computing market size >> desktop computing market size
  - jimktrains2 7y ago
    That's not true, or at least not a major component. A workable phone is about the same as a low-end desktop or laptop, but being mobile and internet-connected by default is a huge functionality win. If you can only afford one device and one ISP, the smartphone is the superior option.
    - ethbro 7y ago
      There are 3G+ enabled laptops. Certainly there are many apples to oranges differences, but I don't think it's fair to discount the "managed" nature of mobile devices as a component of their success. The uptake in Chromebooks would be semi-supporting as well.
      - jimktrains2 7y ago
        Chrome books are also very cheap, bust still no where near as popular as phones. Also, laptops with wwan cards are a thing, but they also coat more, aren't a default, and can't just be bought at a conveniently located store. It also doesn't fit in my pocket or last nearly all day on a charge.
cryptozeus 7y ago
Also this is a Company, they can decide whatever policy for their market. If you don't like it don't be on it. This is why Android has overtaken apple in market share but its stupid to expect them to be god almighty savior in every public situation. Their policy works perfectly for their user base, it is crazy to expect them to change for your opinions. Apple is one of the few companies who is taking privacy related mater seriously. I enjoy their ecosystem for this reason and I will take other things that come with it.

enriquto 7y ago

> There is a peace in knowing that anything comes from the app store will be safe and free of malice. Roman peace in this case. Congratulations on your two cents towards enabling totalitarism.

derefr 7y ago
Is wanting my mom to not be presented with the option of installing malware on her phone (which she will do, and then later ask me to remove), totalitarianism? Let me ask a similar question: is preventing con artists from contacting the elderly with varying degrees of cognitive decline (i.e. people who would easily be tricked by them), totalitarianism? Maybe when it’s the government doing it, but how about when it’s a feature of some, but not all, phones? Apple isn’t a monopoly†. You buy into their curated walled garden, by choice. Just like you see a movie by choice, or enter an art gallery by choice. At that point, you are intentionally handing control over your experience to the person or organization who curates the experience. But you can always revoke that control: just leave the ecosystem. Analogy: City parks exist. National parks exist. National wildlife preserves exist. The former does not preclude the latter. If you visit the former and don’t like the curated nature of it, you can always leave, and go visit the latter, where things are less curated. But there is value and functionality in the curation of a city park. For one, you can take small children and pets to city parks and not have to watch them very hard. († If something is a monopoly, such that it’s hard to avoid using it, then this argument doesn’t apply. Facebook, for example.)
- salawat 7y ago
  I get where you're coming from, but you do need to realize that short of the Librem phones that only recently came into production, there was no non-city park unless you were a developer. Case and point. I did not burst from the womb computer-savvy. I had to learn. Part of that was supported by the fact there were not highly technical barriers to entry in regards to expanding my computational toolset. Getting something working on Android and iOS on the other hand, is over and again more complicated. I can at least side-load to Android, but I must understand Sal and encryption enough to grok code-signing. That is not a trivial barrier to entry. For iOS, I essentially have to sign up as a member of a registry in order to even get something on the phone/tablet for development purposes. My love of computing and figuring out how things work carried me to where I am today; but the high degree of friction that is increasingly implemented for no other reason than being good for business presents a form of computing that I'm still amazed anyone partake in as a pastime at all. Hell, Android is specifically set up to prevent you as a User from doing anything you would conventionally do as a User of a computing system. It is very much a computing platform for the developer's and not the user's benefit. It's a precarious balance to maintain admittedly, but what Apple has illustrated through their actions is that their Phones and AppStore are meant as an extension of themselves to do business first, and to be useful for what you deem fit second. Even if Hong Kongers ended up getting developer accounts to run the safety app, Beijing is well within their authority to use that list of "developers" as a basis for a crackdown by demanding Apple hand it over as a condition of doing business. I can understand the luxury in just being able to get your Gram a mobile phone and not have to worry so much. I worry even more at the consequences in store a few generations down the line where the bunch of we Free Software nutters who remember what flying by the seat of our pants as root, damn the torpedoes, are not guaranteed to be around for to protest when increasingly large and entrenched models of proprietary software distribution networks and OS architectures lock users out of even being able to leverage honest-to-God General Purpose Computation. The more decisions are left to the industry and supply chain, the more rights will be lost by the wayside in the name of doing business.
pmarreck 7y ago
Hyperbole much?

behnamoh 7y ago

That's actually another approach some have on the meaning of the word "free" in the computer world: free of malicious software, without virus/malware/Trojan/bot/worm/etc., free of endless searching for the right app to do the job, free of complicated procedures and user interfaces, etc. And if these mean that the company (Apple in this case) must impose certain limitations on their software (and hardware), then so be it. People are always free to choose which product they want to purchase and for the majority of Apple's users, it seems Apple's definition of freedom has been more appealing than that of the others. It's not like people are not aware that buying an iPhone brings with it some "quirks" (remember you couldn't send/receive files by Bluetooth on iPhone, or in the beginning, third-party apps were not even allowed on iOS, ...). Disclaimer: I'm not defending Apple here. Just saying that I understand their reasons.

driverdan 7y ago

Installing your own software is not a power user thing, it's how computers have worked since they were invented.

ethbro 7y ago
Hence why mobile computing market size >> desktop computing market size
- jimktrains2 7y ago
  That's not true, or at least not a major component. A workable phone is about the same as a low-end desktop or laptop, but being mobile and internet-connected by default is a huge functionality win. If you can only afford one device and one ISP, the smartphone is the superior option.
  - ethbro 7y ago
    There are 3G+ enabled laptops. Certainly there are many apples to oranges differences, but I don't think it's fair to discount the "managed" nature of mobile devices as a component of their success. The uptake in Chromebooks would be semi-supporting as well.
    - jimktrains2 7y ago
      Chrome books are also very cheap, bust still no where near as popular as phones. Also, laptops with wwan cards are a thing, but they also coat more, aren't a default, and can't just be bought at a conveniently located store. It also doesn't fit in my pocket or last nearly all day on a charge.

cryptozeus 7y ago

Also this is a Company, they can decide whatever policy for their market. If you don't like it don't be on it. This is why Android has overtaken apple in market share but its stupid to expect them to be god almighty savior in every public situation. Their policy works perfectly for their user base, it is crazy to expect them to change for your opinions. Apple is one of the few companies who is taking privacy related mater seriously. I enjoy their ecosystem for this reason and I will take other things that come with it.