6 ms·

Your outrage would've made a bit more sense a decade ago when the App Store first came out. But since then it's now the standard for platforms to restrict what

Your outrage would've made a bit more sense a decade ago when the App Store first came out. But since then it's now the standard for platforms to restrict what apps can be installed. For example you can't install any apps you want on a Tesla, Xbox, Playstation, Nintendo, Samsung TV, Sony Camera.

syshum 6y ago
The fact the problem is getting worse is cause for concern not dismissal of the argument Do you find this trend acceptable and desirable
- threeseed 6y ago
  I would love to be able to build and install any apps I want on my Playstation. But then I remember that I live in the real world where piracy exists and companies aren't charities.
  - henriquez 6y ago
    Okay but this is missing the point. The issue with the Hey app is that Apple is inconsistently applying their rules, allowing big players like Netflix and Spotify to not use Apple subscriptions, but trying to force a smaller developer to give up a third of their revenue for following the exact same model. This seems like an unfair and deceptive business practice on Apple’s part and good fodder for a lawsuit.
  - liability 6y ago
    I don't think a charity would be selling a thousand dollar phone, so you're right, Apple is not a charity.
- lostgame 6y ago
  But Apple did not start this trend. On consoles for decades I could only install approved software. That never made the consoles any less useful. In fact, it gave a guarantee of quality - even literally in the form of the ‘Nintendo Seal of Quality’, that determined what I was buying at the very least wouldn’t mess up my console. Similarly, unlike the Play Store; I can feel confident downloading virtually anything from the App Store. Sure, there has been some crap ware, and apps basically designed to exploit money from you via IAP, but I have never hit or seen actual malware like I have on Android. So, I find this desirable, yes. I am lucky enough to have a developer license for iOS and can literally install whatever I want. I use the Provenance emulator to emulate Sega games virtually every day. I could never get that from the App Store. Yes, I had to pay a $99USD privilege for that. I’m okay with that. It costs wayyyy more to get a license and devkit to develop on a console. I would never want my actual primary mobile phone to ever be vulnerable to malware I could easily download, I will more than happily pay for the privilege, and I am statistically not alone when I see it as a feature, not a bug.
  - syshum 6y ago
    >>That never made the consoles any less useful. It did to me and many others, which is why I do not own any consoles and only Play PC games >>Similarly, unlike the Play Store; I can feel confident downloading virtually anything from the App Store. Good for you, that is not the argument. I have no problems with them running a curated store, I have no problems with them shipping the device with only that store. I do have a problem with them prohibiting any and all competing stores, or prohibiting people that bought the device from doing what they want to it See you can have your nice little safe space and never escapes from the Safety of Apples Guided Cage, just do not force that on the rest of us. Apple's polices should be (and hopefully soon the courts will agree they are) anti-trust violation
    - sundaeofshock 6y ago
      It’s not forced on you. You can buy an android device if you want the freedom to install any software at all, no questions asked. Just like no one forced you to buy a console for gaming, no one is forcing you to buy an iPhone for mobile computing.
      - syshum 6y ago
        and you once again missed the point. We limit things a business can do to a consumer in a number of ways, in the US the best examples of that come from the Automotive world where Manufacturers are required by law to allow open access to diagnostic data (ODBII) and required by law still honor warranties even if the device (the car) was serviced by a third party I am absolutely a supporter of extending this consumer protections types of laws to the consumer electronics world (some already apply as many parts of the warrany law apply to all products not just cars) I find it extremely ironic that many people here advocate for government intervention in all manner of things but never when it comes to Apples Anti-consumer practices... no no no.. dont touch apple //for the record I have never and will never own an apple product, I am consumer advocate.
- ianai 6y ago
  We’re at a minimum for individual rights and liberties at the gain of corporate interests.
  - mcherm 6y ago
    We may be at the lowest levels seen in recent times, but I'm fairly confident it is not a minimum because it can go still lower.
  - toasterlovin 6y ago
    But Apple enforcing this rule also creates a better experience for their customers (they can sign up without having to leave the app). This really an argument between two companies about who gets paid for originating the sale.
    - zakki 6y ago
      Is it? What if 30% is given to customers instead of Apple when they subscribe the app outside of AppStore?
    - syshum 6y ago
      Then the apps should be able to add a line item called "convenience fee" that si equal to the amount apple is charging them. The reality is though apple wants to hide their extortion of their customers, if every in-app purchase had a 30% apple tax applied to it the customers would be very upset with apple
ytch 6y ago
Also there is still $1K+ feature phone in the old time, like Vertu
gaze 6y ago
This is a textbook display of normalization of deviance!
cocoa19 6y ago
How is that not anti-competitive? Microsoft lost the browser wars because of the technical and legal restrictions to uninstall internet explorer and install other applications. How is this not a similar restriction where I cannot install whatever application I want?
- twoodfin 6y ago
  Apple doesn’t control 90%+ of the smartphone market. Windows did for PCs.
  - gfxgirl 6y ago
    Yep, only ~60% https://gs.statcounter.com/vendor-market-share/mobile/united-states-of-america https://gs.statcounter.com/vendor-market-share/mobile/united... Monopoly laws are country specific. It doesn't matter if Apple doesn't have a monopoly in the world. It only matter that they have one in a specific country and that that country decides to enforce.
    - adventured 6y ago
      Market share doesn't determine whether a company has a monopoly in the US market. That said, if that's what did determine it, Apple would be in the clear. Android has the majority share of the market in the US and has for a long time. 51.8% as of September 2019, to Apple's 47.4%, according to: https://www.statista.com/statistics/266572/market-share-held-by-smartphone-platforms-in-the-united-states/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/266572/market-share-held... And 46% for Apple as of the first quarter of 2020, according to: https://www.counterpointresearch.com/us-market-smartphone-share/ https://www.counterpointresearch.com/us-market-smartphone-sh... The statcounter.com site you linked to is a notoriously mediocre resource if you're looking for data that is accurate and representative of a market.
      - gfxgirl 6y ago
        Android is not a phone vendor. Samsumg, LG, Sony, Motorola are phone vendors. Wrong comparison.
ASalazarMX 6y ago
It's a very good thing that they sanitize their App Store for the 95% of users that just want convenience. It's a very bad thing that Apple puts blocks every step of the way when you want to sideload an app, even if you made it yourself for your own private use.
- Marsymars 6y ago
  > It's a very good thing that they sanitize their App Store for the 95% of users that just want convenience. I would content they don't even do a particularly good job of that. Sure, there's almost no outright malware, but the overwhelming majority of apps are shovelware. (And why do they need ads in the app store? If the search is good, ads are purely a detriment to users.)
waon 6y ago
In addition to your argument being a blatant example of whataboutism, it’s also the worst comparison ever. The iPhone is a general purpose computing device unlike any of the examples you’ve given. A monopoly over a platform people depend on for almost every aspect of their life is alarming. A monopoly over PlayStation games isn’t nearly as troubling as a monopoly over iOS apps.
- catern 6y ago
  What makes the iPhone general purpose and those others not? Certainly all of them run general purpose CPUs and operating systems, though locked down.
  - waon 6y ago
    Here’s a good quote for you: “The answer to 'where you draw the line' is literally always 'somewhere.' You draw it somewhere.” How would you not think iPhones are general purpose devices? Using a general purpose CPU and general purpose OS does not make the whole device “general purpose.” You’re playing word games here.
    - catern 6y ago
      Sure, I think iPhones are general purpose computers. You seem to think that >Tesla, Xbox, Playstation, Nintendo, Samsung TV, Sony Camera. are not general purpose computers. So what causes that difference in classification? As I said, it's not a technical difference - those products all have fully general-purpose hardware and software inside them - so the difference must be something else. You said: >The iPhone is a general purpose computing device unlike any of the examples you’ve given. >A monopoly over a platform people depend on for almost every aspect of their life is alarming. A monopoly over PlayStation games isn’t nearly as troubling as a monopoly over iOS apps. If I understand you right, you're saying it's fine for Playstations etc to be restricted in what software they can run, because they're not general purpose devices, but because the iPhone is a general purpose device, it should be allowed to run any software its users want. But that doesn't make any sense. Why isn't a Playstation a general purpose computer? It certainly could browse the web or run all the same software as an iPhone. Why am I not able to do that? Well, because it's restricted in what software it can run! That's the point I was obliquely trying to make.
dilap 6y ago
That doesn't make it any less outrageous!
orangecat 6y ago
Many of us were outraged a decade ago. And we were told "you're being paranoid, this is only for phones", when it was obvious that mobile computing was going to take over almost everything.
grawprog 6y ago
Standard != right The same argument could be made for many things that used to be considered standard. Remember when lead in gasoline was standard? Remember when radium in paint was standard? Remember when arsenic in food was standard?
dahfizz 6y ago
> you can't install any apps you want on a Tesla, Xbox, Playstation, Nintendo, Samsung TV, Sony Camera. None of those are general use computing platforms. The only real analog to iOS is Android, where you can install anything you want. Don't pretend like Apple is blameless.
pier25 6y ago
> Tesla, Xbox, Playstation, Nintendo, Samsung TV, Sony Camera Those are very specialized devices, unlike a "pocket computer" which is what smartphones are.
- lewisgodowski 6y ago
  Teslas have a web browser, video/media applications, games, and basic DAW. That's a bit more than just a "specialized device", and almost sounds like a computer.
rezonant 6y ago
None of those platforms (Tesla, Xbox, Playstation, Nintendo, Samsung TV, Sony Camera) are general purpose computers. Your phone is a general purpose computer. For all of Google's faults, and there are many, it is still to this day possible to install any software I want on my Android phone. I recognize that in the wrong hands this can go wrong, but there should always be an escape hatch, even if that escape hatch is buried under a hundred "Warning what you are doing could be insecure" dialogs (and they should be). That being said, things aren't all peachy on the Android side: My understanding is that third party app stores for instance rely on the user's phone being configured to accept code from unknown sources -- instead it should be possible to acquire a Store in a safe and secure way, and delegate to that store the ability to install software from that store, without requiring Unknown Sources to be on. Maybe this has changed recently, I hope someone will pipe up to correct me if it has!
- Despegar 6y ago
  >Your phone is a general purpose computer. This might be a useful distinction but it isn't for the law. There's no particular requirement that "general purpose computers" behave in a certain way.
  - rezonant 6y ago
    I didn't say there was. Doesn't mean we shouldn't hold these vendors to account by not buying their products
- csande17 6y ago
  At least on my phone, the "Install unknown apps" permission is per-source. So the F-Droid app is allowed to install software, but my web browser isn't. There still isn't a bulletproof way to download a new store in the first place, though -- I ended up temporarily granting "Install unknown apps" to my browser, downloading and installing the app from f-droid.org, then revoking the permission from my browser.
  - rezonant 6y ago
    This rings a bell. Glad to see there's some improvement here.

syshum 6y ago

The fact the problem is getting worse is cause for concern not dismissal of the argument Do you find this trend acceptable and desirable

threeseed 6y ago
I would love to be able to build and install any apps I want on my Playstation. But then I remember that I live in the real world where piracy exists and companies aren't charities.
- henriquez 6y ago
  Okay but this is missing the point. The issue with the Hey app is that Apple is inconsistently applying their rules, allowing big players like Netflix and Spotify to not use Apple subscriptions, but trying to force a smaller developer to give up a third of their revenue for following the exact same model. This seems like an unfair and deceptive business practice on Apple’s part and good fodder for a lawsuit.
- liability 6y ago
  I don't think a charity would be selling a thousand dollar phone, so you're right, Apple is not a charity.
lostgame 6y ago
But Apple did not start this trend. On consoles for decades I could only install approved software. That never made the consoles any less useful. In fact, it gave a guarantee of quality - even literally in the form of the ‘Nintendo Seal of Quality’, that determined what I was buying at the very least wouldn’t mess up my console. Similarly, unlike the Play Store; I can feel confident downloading virtually anything from the App Store. Sure, there has been some crap ware, and apps basically designed to exploit money from you via IAP, but I have never hit or seen actual malware like I have on Android. So, I find this desirable, yes. I am lucky enough to have a developer license for iOS and can literally install whatever I want. I use the Provenance emulator to emulate Sega games virtually every day. I could never get that from the App Store. Yes, I had to pay a $99USD privilege for that. I’m okay with that. It costs wayyyy more to get a license and devkit to develop on a console. I would never want my actual primary mobile phone to ever be vulnerable to malware I could easily download, I will more than happily pay for the privilege, and I am statistically not alone when I see it as a feature, not a bug.
- syshum 6y ago
  >>That never made the consoles any less useful. It did to me and many others, which is why I do not own any consoles and only Play PC games >>Similarly, unlike the Play Store; I can feel confident downloading virtually anything from the App Store. Good for you, that is not the argument. I have no problems with them running a curated store, I have no problems with them shipping the device with only that store. I do have a problem with them prohibiting any and all competing stores, or prohibiting people that bought the device from doing what they want to it See you can have your nice little safe space and never escapes from the Safety of Apples Guided Cage, just do not force that on the rest of us. Apple's polices should be (and hopefully soon the courts will agree they are) anti-trust violation
  - sundaeofshock 6y ago
    It’s not forced on you. You can buy an android device if you want the freedom to install any software at all, no questions asked. Just like no one forced you to buy a console for gaming, no one is forcing you to buy an iPhone for mobile computing.
    - syshum 6y ago
      and you once again missed the point. We limit things a business can do to a consumer in a number of ways, in the US the best examples of that come from the Automotive world where Manufacturers are required by law to allow open access to diagnostic data (ODBII) and required by law still honor warranties even if the device (the car) was serviced by a third party I am absolutely a supporter of extending this consumer protections types of laws to the consumer electronics world (some already apply as many parts of the warrany law apply to all products not just cars) I find it extremely ironic that many people here advocate for government intervention in all manner of things but never when it comes to Apples Anti-consumer practices... no no no.. dont touch apple //for the record I have never and will never own an apple product, I am consumer advocate.
ianai 6y ago
We’re at a minimum for individual rights and liberties at the gain of corporate interests.
- mcherm 6y ago
  We may be at the lowest levels seen in recent times, but I'm fairly confident it is not a minimum because it can go still lower.
- toasterlovin 6y ago
  But Apple enforcing this rule also creates a better experience for their customers (they can sign up without having to leave the app). This really an argument between two companies about who gets paid for originating the sale.
  - zakki 6y ago
    Is it? What if 30% is given to customers instead of Apple when they subscribe the app outside of AppStore?
  - syshum 6y ago
    Then the apps should be able to add a line item called "convenience fee" that si equal to the amount apple is charging them. The reality is though apple wants to hide their extortion of their customers, if every in-app purchase had a 30% apple tax applied to it the customers would be very upset with apple

ytch 6y ago

Also there is still $1K+ feature phone in the old time, like Vertu

gaze 6y ago

This is a textbook display of normalization of deviance!

cocoa19 6y ago

How is that not anti-competitive? Microsoft lost the browser wars because of the technical and legal restrictions to uninstall internet explorer and install other applications. How is this not a similar restriction where I cannot install whatever application I want?

twoodfin 6y ago
Apple doesn’t control 90%+ of the smartphone market. Windows did for PCs.
- gfxgirl 6y ago
  Yep, only ~60% https://gs.statcounter.com/vendor-market-share/mobile/united-states-of-america https://gs.statcounter.com/vendor-market-share/mobile/united... Monopoly laws are country specific. It doesn't matter if Apple doesn't have a monopoly in the world. It only matter that they have one in a specific country and that that country decides to enforce.
  - adventured 6y ago
    Market share doesn't determine whether a company has a monopoly in the US market. That said, if that's what did determine it, Apple would be in the clear. Android has the majority share of the market in the US and has for a long time. 51.8% as of September 2019, to Apple's 47.4%, according to: https://www.statista.com/statistics/266572/market-share-held-by-smartphone-platforms-in-the-united-states/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/266572/market-share-held... And 46% for Apple as of the first quarter of 2020, according to: https://www.counterpointresearch.com/us-market-smartphone-share/ https://www.counterpointresearch.com/us-market-smartphone-sh... The statcounter.com site you linked to is a notoriously mediocre resource if you're looking for data that is accurate and representative of a market.
    - gfxgirl 6y ago
      Android is not a phone vendor. Samsumg, LG, Sony, Motorola are phone vendors. Wrong comparison.

ASalazarMX 6y ago

It's a very good thing that they sanitize their App Store for the 95% of users that just want convenience. It's a very bad thing that Apple puts blocks every step of the way when you want to sideload an app, even if you made it yourself for your own private use.

Marsymars 6y ago
> It's a very good thing that they sanitize their App Store for the 95% of users that just want convenience. I would content they don't even do a particularly good job of that. Sure, there's almost no outright malware, but the overwhelming majority of apps are shovelware. (And why do they need ads in the app store? If the search is good, ads are purely a detriment to users.)

waon 6y ago

In addition to your argument being a blatant example of whataboutism, it’s also the worst comparison ever. The iPhone is a general purpose computing device unlike any of the examples you’ve given. A monopoly over a platform people depend on for almost every aspect of their life is alarming. A monopoly over PlayStation games isn’t nearly as troubling as a monopoly over iOS apps.

catern 6y ago
What makes the iPhone general purpose and those others not? Certainly all of them run general purpose CPUs and operating systems, though locked down.
- waon 6y ago
  Here’s a good quote for you: “The answer to 'where you draw the line' is literally always 'somewhere.' You draw it somewhere.” How would you not think iPhones are general purpose devices? Using a general purpose CPU and general purpose OS does not make the whole device “general purpose.” You’re playing word games here.
  - catern 6y ago
    Sure, I think iPhones are general purpose computers. You seem to think that >Tesla, Xbox, Playstation, Nintendo, Samsung TV, Sony Camera. are not general purpose computers. So what causes that difference in classification? As I said, it's not a technical difference - those products all have fully general-purpose hardware and software inside them - so the difference must be something else. You said: >The iPhone is a general purpose computing device unlike any of the examples you’ve given. >A monopoly over a platform people depend on for almost every aspect of their life is alarming. A monopoly over PlayStation games isn’t nearly as troubling as a monopoly over iOS apps. If I understand you right, you're saying it's fine for Playstations etc to be restricted in what software they can run, because they're not general purpose devices, but because the iPhone is a general purpose device, it should be allowed to run any software its users want. But that doesn't make any sense. Why isn't a Playstation a general purpose computer? It certainly could browse the web or run all the same software as an iPhone. Why am I not able to do that? Well, because it's restricted in what software it can run! That's the point I was obliquely trying to make.

dilap 6y ago

That doesn't make it any less outrageous!

orangecat 6y ago

Many of us were outraged a decade ago. And we were told "you're being paranoid, this is only for phones", when it was obvious that mobile computing was going to take over almost everything.

grawprog 6y ago

Standard != right The same argument could be made for many things that used to be considered standard. Remember when lead in gasoline was standard? Remember when radium in paint was standard? Remember when arsenic in food was standard?

dahfizz 6y ago

> you can't install any apps you want on a Tesla, Xbox, Playstation, Nintendo, Samsung TV, Sony Camera. None of those are general use computing platforms. The only real analog to iOS is Android, where you can install anything you want. Don't pretend like Apple is blameless.

pier25 6y ago

> Tesla, Xbox, Playstation, Nintendo, Samsung TV, Sony Camera Those are very specialized devices, unlike a "pocket computer" which is what smartphones are.

lewisgodowski 6y ago
Teslas have a web browser, video/media applications, games, and basic DAW. That's a bit more than just a "specialized device", and almost sounds like a computer.

rezonant 6y ago

None of those platforms (Tesla, Xbox, Playstation, Nintendo, Samsung TV, Sony Camera) are general purpose computers. Your phone is a general purpose computer. For all of Google's faults, and there are many, it is still to this day possible to install any software I want on my Android phone. I recognize that in the wrong hands this can go wrong, but there should always be an escape hatch, even if that escape hatch is buried under a hundred "Warning what you are doing could be insecure" dialogs (and they should be). That being said, things aren't all peachy on the Android side: My understanding is that third party app stores for instance rely on the user's phone being configured to accept code from unknown sources -- instead it should be possible to acquire a Store in a safe and secure way, and delegate to that store the ability to install software from that store, without requiring Unknown Sources to be on. Maybe this has changed recently, I hope someone will pipe up to correct me if it has!

Despegar 6y ago
>Your phone is a general purpose computer. This might be a useful distinction but it isn't for the law. There's no particular requirement that "general purpose computers" behave in a certain way.
- rezonant 6y ago
  I didn't say there was. Doesn't mean we shouldn't hold these vendors to account by not buying their products
csande17 6y ago
At least on my phone, the "Install unknown apps" permission is per-source. So the F-Droid app is allowed to install software, but my web browser isn't. There still isn't a bulletproof way to download a new store in the first place, though -- I ended up temporarily granting "Install unknown apps" to my browser, downloading and installing the app from f-droid.org, then revoking the permission from my browser.
- rezonant 6y ago
  This rings a bell. Glad to see there's some improvement here.