5 ms·

Do you think your desire for convenience should outweigh the benefits to users/devs who want freedom of choice?

by pentae 6y ago

rahkiin 6y ago
If a developer does not want their product sold to customers of Walmart because Walmart takes % percentage and has a certain set of rules, then the developer can go away and not sell to Walmarts customers. Same analogy works with Xbox/PlayStation customer base.
- pentae 6y ago
  Walmart is one of thousands of stores where you can purchase goods. XBox/Playstations are a niche recreational device for gaming, not an essential device used by everyone to procure goods and services and conduct business.
  - jfk13 6y ago
    An iPhone is now an essential device used by everyone? It's a wonder I am still surviving.
    - pentae 6y ago
      Smartphones are now pretty essential. You can't even enter stores in my country without scanning a QR code for COVID tracking
      - jasode 6y ago
        >Smartphones are now pretty essential. If you didn't notice, you switched the conversation from "Apple iPhone" to "smartphone". In any case, I didn't get an iPhone until 2012 and for the entire 7+ years of ownership, I have never installed a single app on it. I just use the plain vanilla functionality. An Apple product like the iPhone and the Apple curated App Store is not essential to life. About 90% of my friends & family use Android (the more popular smartphones) because they cost less than Apple. EDIT to downvoters: - gp comment (rahkiin) of Walmart-restrictions analogy is about Apple (not "smartphones" in general) - followup comment (jfk13) is also about Apple iPhone and not smartphones - pentae's comment that switches the subject from "iPhone" to "smartphones" ... to try an win an argument just confuses the thread
        harpratap 6y ago
        You are just being pedantic now. It was pretty clear what he/she meant. Smartphones are a necessity now.
        jasode 6y ago
        >You are just being pedantic now. It was pretty clear what he/she meant. Smartphones are a necessity now. It's not pedantic in this case because the raison d'etre of this thread is Apple's restrictions (including sideloading). With that specific context, an "Apple iPhone" is not equivalent to "smartphone" and pentae's comment that mixes up the 2 is muddying up the discussion. The ability for 3rd party devs to sideload apps on my Apple iPhone is not essential to life.
        aspenmayer 6y ago
        It is essential to liberty, which is why the Library of Congress has made exemptions to DMCA for jailbreaking. It’s not a question of life, but of the quality thereof. People fully control devices they own.
        wayneftw 6y ago
        Automobiles have plenty of restrictions on how they can be built, marketed and sold even though no single brand is essential to every single person. If enough people want changes around how smartphones and smartphone platforms operate, we'll get new legislation for it, if it doesn't already exist.
        pentae 6y ago
        So could you tell us how an iPhone is not a smartphone?
        jasode 6y ago
        Yes, the iPhone _is_ a "smartphone" but that's not the point for this particular thread. Yes, sometimes we do treat "Apple_iPhone"==synonym=="smartphone" for simplified discussion but sometimes we do not. This thread is one of those cases where we do not. To recap the context ... - thread article title: "Dear _Apple_: Here’s How to Stop the Antitrust..." The title is "Dear Apple", not "Dear all _smartphone_ manufacturers". The reason for this thread's existence is making a distinction between Apple vs smartphones. From the very beginning, our comments and replies have to continue that distinction for this particular thread. - gp comment (rahkiin) continued that distinction of iPhone-vs-smartphones with the Walmart-restrictions analogy. I.e. "Walmart"="Apple" and presumably "Target/Amazon/GooglePixel/etc"="other non-Apple smartphones" - followup comment (jfk13) continued that distinction of iPhone-vs-smartphones - your reply (pentae) comment that switches the subject from "iPhone" to "smartphones" ... is a non-sequitur. It looks like you're trying to win an argument instead of replying to their specific point about Apple restrictions and developers having the ability to choose a different marketplace (e.g. the Android marketplace). The thread+rahkiin+jfk13 were talking about Apple iPhone and not all smartphones in general. You don't have to agree with rahkiin+jfk13 but your comment's switch to generalized "smartphone" isn't engaging with what they actually wrote.
      - pwinnski 6y ago
        Parent didn't say "smartphone," they said "iPhone." You can use an Android phone and sideload and use whatever payment method you want.
- GVIrish 6y ago
  The problem is that Google and Apple are a duopoly and as such both have outsized market power. And with that outsized power, Apple has regularly abused app businesses trying to make money in the App Store. From blocking apps that replicate core functionality to the whole IAP shakedown Apple has used their market power in capricious and self-serving ways that have gotten other companies in anti-trust hot water in the past. Having a curated market is fine, but when you use that market curation to undercut sellers in that market to your own benefit you start getting into trouble. Then, when that market controls the lion's share of revenue in that type of market, regulators will eventually start firing up lawsuits.
iguy 6y ago
Not OP, but I share the desire for convenience. This convenience is only available to me because there is a large customer base which companies can't access any other way. They have varying reasons for wanting an iphone, each of which alone would not (I think) form a big enough pool to persuade companies to listen. Or the privacy conscious are tempted to make an exception when (like OP) they badly need something to work right now... or just don't have time to vet every company... and divided we fall. And I'm happy to pay for this. I probably spent double what I would have paid for an android phone. I have not spent close to that much again on apps. But the difference between $5 and $10 inside the app store is (for me) much smaller than the hurdle of having to go to some other dodgy payment gateway & give them my card.
- pentae 6y ago
  And if side loading was possible, what makes you think that your App Store experience would suffer?
  - photonios 6y ago
    It wouldn't, but eventually somehow is going to find a way to sneakily install apps on my grandma's phone that are no good. I like the current experience because it keeps the really bad stuff out.
  - iguy 6y ago
    I guess my claim is that, if side-loading were common, then lots of apps which now play by the rules would (eventually) be replaced by ones that don't. There are lots of iphone apps from companies I would never trust to install a real app on my computer. I'm glad they exist, and are so firmly kept under control. (And I'm sure their makers grumble about this.) I also buy lots of things from companies I would never trust with my credit card details.
    - Andrew_nenakhov 6y ago
      No one would take away your right not to trust such companies your card details. Unfortunately, you are OK with the fact that some people can't exercise their will to trust said companies and use their software, even if they badly need it.
photonios 6y ago
Yes, if their convenience comes at a cost to my convenience. I pay a premium for my iPhone and various other Apple devices. The fact that there is only one AppStore, controlled by a single party is a feature for me that I am happy to pay for. If there's is more than one party which can install apps on my device, I have to worry about which party to trust etc. The same applies to payments.
- robert_foss 6y ago
  If you trust the AppStore, just use that. If other people want to use other sources, that shouldn't affect you.
  - Steko 6y ago
    It certainly affects you if: (1) Apple, seeing drastically reduced app revenue, stops investing as much in the app store, dev tools, etc. Or increases their hardware prices; (2) third party stores pay for exclusive apps; (3) malware is installed by people with your contact info and communications; (4) even if no intent to use, the malware risk is there and you're a few drunk clicks from losing your bank account.
    - robert_foss 6y ago
      #1 Apple makes enough money. If they don't want to support their app store, than that is choice they're making. #2 Frankly this is much like the situation we're in now. Only that we there are no other options. This eventuality is surely less bad than the current actuality. #3 Malware is already installed by people you are in contact with. And nothing prevents a 3rd party store from having equally rigorous testing as Apple. #4 You're a few drunk swipes away from emptying your credit card today.
      - Nebasuke 6y ago
        Sure, I can understand those arguments in favour of having a 3rd party store, but that's not what the parent is arguing, nor what you said in your original post. All of these do affect the user. You think it would be a better ecosystem, but some users would not agree it's a strictly better approach. I for one don't.

Do you think your desire for convenience should outweigh the benefits to users/devs who want freedom of choice?

by pentae 6y ago

Do you think your desire for convenience should outweigh the benefits to users/devs who want freedom of choice?

If a developer does not want their product sold to customers of Walmart because Walmart takes % percentage and has a certain set of rules, then the developer can go away and not sell to Walmarts customers. Same analogy works with Xbox/PlayStation customer base.

pentae 6y ago
Walmart is one of thousands of stores where you can purchase goods. XBox/Playstations are a niche recreational device for gaming, not an essential device used by everyone to procure goods and services and conduct business.
- jfk13 6y ago
  An iPhone is now an essential device used by everyone? It's a wonder I am still surviving.
  - pentae 6y ago
    Smartphones are now pretty essential. You can't even enter stores in my country without scanning a QR code for COVID tracking
    - jasode 6y ago
      >Smartphones are now pretty essential. If you didn't notice, you switched the conversation from "Apple iPhone" to "smartphone". In any case, I didn't get an iPhone until 2012 and for the entire 7+ years of ownership, I have never installed a single app on it. I just use the plain vanilla functionality. An Apple product like the iPhone and the Apple curated App Store is not essential to life. About 90% of my friends & family use Android (the more popular smartphones) because they cost less than Apple. EDIT to downvoters: - gp comment (rahkiin) of Walmart-restrictions analogy is about Apple (not "smartphones" in general) - followup comment (jfk13) is also about Apple iPhone and not smartphones - pentae's comment that switches the subject from "iPhone" to "smartphones" ... to try an win an argument just confuses the thread
      - harpratap 6y ago
        You are just being pedantic now. It was pretty clear what he/she meant. Smartphones are a necessity now.
        jasode 6y ago
        >You are just being pedantic now. It was pretty clear what he/she meant. Smartphones are a necessity now. It's not pedantic in this case because the raison d'etre of this thread is Apple's restrictions (including sideloading). With that specific context, an "Apple iPhone" is not equivalent to "smartphone" and pentae's comment that mixes up the 2 is muddying up the discussion. The ability for 3rd party devs to sideload apps on my Apple iPhone is not essential to life.
        aspenmayer 6y ago
        It is essential to liberty, which is why the Library of Congress has made exemptions to DMCA for jailbreaking. It’s not a question of life, but of the quality thereof. People fully control devices they own.
        wayneftw 6y ago
        Automobiles have plenty of restrictions on how they can be built, marketed and sold even though no single brand is essential to every single person. If enough people want changes around how smartphones and smartphone platforms operate, we'll get new legislation for it, if it doesn't already exist.
        pentae 6y ago
        So could you tell us how an iPhone is not a smartphone?
        jasode 6y ago
        Yes, the iPhone _is_ a "smartphone" but that's not the point for this particular thread. Yes, sometimes we do treat "Apple_iPhone"==synonym=="smartphone" for simplified discussion but sometimes we do not. This thread is one of those cases where we do not. To recap the context ... - thread article title: "Dear _Apple_: Here’s How to Stop the Antitrust..." The title is "Dear Apple", not "Dear all _smartphone_ manufacturers". The reason for this thread's existence is making a distinction between Apple vs smartphones. From the very beginning, our comments and replies have to continue that distinction for this particular thread. - gp comment (rahkiin) continued that distinction of iPhone-vs-smartphones with the Walmart-restrictions analogy. I.e. "Walmart"="Apple" and presumably "Target/Amazon/GooglePixel/etc"="other non-Apple smartphones" - followup comment (jfk13) continued that distinction of iPhone-vs-smartphones - your reply (pentae) comment that switches the subject from "iPhone" to "smartphones" ... is a non-sequitur. It looks like you're trying to win an argument instead of replying to their specific point about Apple restrictions and developers having the ability to choose a different marketplace (e.g. the Android marketplace). The thread+rahkiin+jfk13 were talking about Apple iPhone and not all smartphones in general. You don't have to agree with rahkiin+jfk13 but your comment's switch to generalized "smartphone" isn't engaging with what they actually wrote.
    - pwinnski 6y ago
      Parent didn't say "smartphone," they said "iPhone." You can use an Android phone and sideload and use whatever payment method you want.
GVIrish 6y ago
The problem is that Google and Apple are a duopoly and as such both have outsized market power. And with that outsized power, Apple has regularly abused app businesses trying to make money in the App Store. From blocking apps that replicate core functionality to the whole IAP shakedown Apple has used their market power in capricious and self-serving ways that have gotten other companies in anti-trust hot water in the past. Having a curated market is fine, but when you use that market curation to undercut sellers in that market to your own benefit you start getting into trouble. Then, when that market controls the lion's share of revenue in that type of market, regulators will eventually start firing up lawsuits.

iguy 6y ago

Not OP, but I share the desire for convenience. This convenience is only available to me because there is a large customer base which companies can't access any other way. They have varying reasons for wanting an iphone, each of which alone would not (I think) form a big enough pool to persuade companies to listen. Or the privacy conscious are tempted to make an exception when (like OP) they badly need something to work right now... or just don't have time to vet every company... and divided we fall. And I'm happy to pay for this. I probably spent double what I would have paid for an android phone. I have not spent close to that much again on apps. But the difference between $5 and $10 inside the app store is (for me) much smaller than the hurdle of having to go to some other dodgy payment gateway & give them my card.

pentae 6y ago
And if side loading was possible, what makes you think that your App Store experience would suffer?
- photonios 6y ago
  It wouldn't, but eventually somehow is going to find a way to sneakily install apps on my grandma's phone that are no good. I like the current experience because it keeps the really bad stuff out.
- iguy 6y ago
  I guess my claim is that, if side-loading were common, then lots of apps which now play by the rules would (eventually) be replaced by ones that don't. There are lots of iphone apps from companies I would never trust to install a real app on my computer. I'm glad they exist, and are so firmly kept under control. (And I'm sure their makers grumble about this.) I also buy lots of things from companies I would never trust with my credit card details.
  - Andrew_nenakhov 6y ago
    No one would take away your right not to trust such companies your card details. Unfortunately, you are OK with the fact that some people can't exercise their will to trust said companies and use their software, even if they badly need it.

photonios 6y ago

Yes, if their convenience comes at a cost to my convenience. I pay a premium for my iPhone and various other Apple devices. The fact that there is only one AppStore, controlled by a single party is a feature for me that I am happy to pay for. If there's is more than one party which can install apps on my device, I have to worry about which party to trust etc. The same applies to payments.

robert_foss 6y ago
If you trust the AppStore, just use that. If other people want to use other sources, that shouldn't affect you.
- Steko 6y ago
  It certainly affects you if: (1) Apple, seeing drastically reduced app revenue, stops investing as much in the app store, dev tools, etc. Or increases their hardware prices; (2) third party stores pay for exclusive apps; (3) malware is installed by people with your contact info and communications; (4) even if no intent to use, the malware risk is there and you're a few drunk clicks from losing your bank account.
  - robert_foss 6y ago
    #1 Apple makes enough money. If they don't want to support their app store, than that is choice they're making. #2 Frankly this is much like the situation we're in now. Only that we there are no other options. This eventuality is surely less bad than the current actuality. #3 Malware is already installed by people you are in contact with. And nothing prevents a 3rd party store from having equally rigorous testing as Apple. #4 You're a few drunk swipes away from emptying your credit card today.
    - Nebasuke 6y ago
      Sure, I can understand those arguments in favour of having a 3rd party store, but that's not what the parent is arguing, nor what you said in your original post. All of these do affect the user. You think it would be a better ecosystem, but some users would not agree it's a strictly better approach. I for one don't.