58 ms·
You seem to have forgotten about Android. The solution to anti-trust cases is not a blanket “break them up. In this case, requiring Apple to allow third-party A
by ianmobbs 6y ago
You seem to have forgotten about Android. The solution to anti-trust cases is not a blanket “break them up. In this case, requiring Apple to allow third-party App Stores is going to be the key issue. The lawyers will likely take heavy inspiration from Microsoft’s antitrust suit from the early 00s
- valuearb 6y agoThird party stores would be a disaster for customers and developers, even worse than the ones on Android.
- pauliusj 6y agoHow would that be worse? Always having the option to install whatever you want on device you own is the most pro customer thing ever
- mhh__ 6y agoIn what universe do customers suffer from having the freedom to choose?
- dwighttk 6y agoMy parents' iPhones: 0 sketchy apps or browser plugins My parents' Macs: every sketchy app and browser plugin available on macOS
- gambiting 6y agoI would prefer to live in a world where customers don't have to be treated like children though. Just handle it the same way Android does it - only allow apps from the app store by default, or you can enable unsafe mode and install whatever you want - the choice should always be yours.
- valuearb 6y agoWho cares what you prefer? This is the exact value differentiator between Android and iPhone. If Apple doesn’t secure the device and vet the Apps, you’ve destroyed what made it different, and in its customers eyes, great.
- gambiting 6y agoI literally don't get that argument. Just like on Android, 99% of customers would never ever untick that box and would enjoy the benefit provided by apple-vetted apps, while we as customers would regain control of the devices that we paid for, allowing them to run code that hasn't been vetted by Apple....if you wish to do so. I'd also appreciate if you laid off the personal attacks, thank you.
- valuearb 6y agoWhat personal attack? You are demanding Apple turn the iPhone into the same insecure crapware that is Android. You don’t deserve that choice.
- gambiting 6y agoSaying "who cares what you prefer" and "you don't deserve that choice" are both examples of speech that's not welcome on HN. >>You are demanding Apple turn the iPhone into the same insecure crapware that is Android. Uhm, no, Android is full of crapware because Google does not vet apps the same way Apple does, not because you can side load APKs.
- zaroth 6y agoCustomers don’t “have to be treated like children”. An Apple device is an option you can choose if you want that extra layer of blanket protection. That’s the whole point of having choices in a competitive market. You get to choose in a competitive market which device you want to buy. This attempt to try to force Apple to change how they do business is eliminating a key differentiator and therefore removing the ability for a consumer to choose this approach.
- saagarjha 6y ago> 0 sketchy apps Have you ever peeked inside one of those apps?
- paxys 6y agoHow is a sideloaded app any more or less sketchy than one downloaded from the app store, when it is using the exact same APIs?
- ac29 6y agoIn theory, Apple is ensuring apps dont misuse those APIs. In practice, they seem much more concerned with preventing apps from threatening their extremely lucrative software and service revenues.
- valuearb 6y agoApple vets App Store apps by running them through an automated system to detect malware and misuse of APUs, and then hand tests them for same.
- CamperBob2 6y agoAnd the common denominator? "My parents." Maybe your parents need to be protected from their own poor decisionmaking, but is that true for everyone?
- valuearb 6y agoApple offers you a choice. Safety and security, or you can get an Android phone.
- CamperBob2 6y agoThat's non-responsive to my question.
- viro 6y agoSecurity. the ability to find non shitty ass clones
- xmprt 6y agoI don't agree but you're going to have to explain yourself if you want to get the benefit of the doubt.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- rowanG077 6y agoI'm not sure how it could be worse. The app store is filled with mountains and mountains of malware as it is.
- paxys 6y agoNot even third-party App Stores, just third-party payments processors will be a good start.
- ffggvv 6y agowhy do we need appstore’s at all? on my computer i can just download an executable from any website i please. i don’t need an app store intermediary
- bosswipe 6y agoNote that Apple has been slowly moving to restrict that ability in MacOS as well. Each release makes it harder to install applications from developers that haven't kissed Apple's ring.
- sebmellen 6y agoThis is a good point. They've also been filling MacOS with more bloat while disregarding key development features. The latest Catalina update is a complete mess and shows how misguided Apple is on this front.
- jki275 6y agoIt only does that for end users who don't want to run the commands necessary to turn all that off. It's mildly annoying, but it doesn't restrict what I as a dev can do with my Macs.
- RonanTheGrey 6y agoCan you share how to do this? I'm beyond annoyed at this behavior. I don't even know what to search for. "MacOS stop verifying apps"?
- Jtsummers 6y agoLong link below. That seems to be the current one. It shows how to enable non-App Store applications by identified developers, and also how to open applications it can't verify (I rarely run into this, but occasionally with open source software or niche tabletop gaming software). https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT202491#:~:text=View%20the%20app%20security%20settings%20on%20your%20Mac&text=In%20System%20Preferences%2C%20click%20Security,%E2%80%9CAllow%20apps%20downloaded%20from.%E2%80%9D https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT202491#:~:text=View%20the%...
- Sniffnoy 6y agoHm, wouldn't this require an overturning of Atari vs. Nintendo[0] or something like that? [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atari_Games_Corp._v._Nintendo_of_America_Inc https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atari_Games_Corp._v._Nintendo_....
- gpm 6y agoI don't think so, because - That case was heard by the federal circuit, and if I recall the rules regarding that curious circuit correctly (no guarantees) anything unrelated to patents is not binding precedent on any court. - That case just decided that it wasn't copyright misuse to do something vaguely like this, not that it didn't violate any of the various anti-trust acts. While the reason for the case is similar the law being argued looks to be entirely different. - That case wasn't decided based on legal principles, but because Atari lied and cheated "Atari's copyright misuse defense was precluded by the doctrine of unclean hands, as Atari had lied to the Copyright Office to obtain an unauthorized copy of the 10NES." (I only know what the wikipedia article says about the case)