3 ms·

So anyone who doesn’t think it’s as much a slam-dunk as everyone high-fiving each other thinks is automatically an apologist? I’d love to have the option to si

So anyone who doesn’t think it’s as much a slam-dunk as everyone high-fiving each other thinks is automatically an apologist? I’d love to have the option to sideload apps on my iPhone. I understood that I couldn’t do this when I bought it however, and don’t really see any compelling arguments as to why Apple would lose - there seem to be many, many arguments based on fuzzy-feelings like “I don’t like it” and “I feel 30% is too high” and “but it’s morally wrong” and “well if you imagine it this way it’s really a monopoly” and “no, I have decided that arbitrarily this would only apply to ‘general purpose’ devices”, none of which sound like legal arguments. I assume Epic is putting this up to lose in order to gamble that the law is changed in response to that suit, in which case they’d be fighting presumably against at least the lobby power of Apple, Microsoft, Sony and Nintendo and many other interests.

echelon 6y ago
> I’d love to have the option to sideload apps on my iPhone. As would developers. Computing used to be free as in speech. You could host an `.exe` file on your website and point customers there to download it. Now most people use phones and >50% of Americans are out of your reach. Don't claim that security sandboxing, privacy, and protecting users is why this has been done. With the appropriate design, users can be protected and the freedom to compute can remain. Don't push the blame on the web not being a sufficiently native platform. Cross-platform APIs could have been built. It would have saved centuries of human effort writing both Android and iPhone apps. Think of all the human innovation capital wasted. Maybe some of these people could have been solving cancer instead. Don't compare this to Nintendo. If I write a video game in C++, I can distribute it on PC, Mac, Linux, Xbox, PlayStation, Switch, Android, iPhone, Steam, and on my website. Most gamers own more than one of these platforms at a time, making it easier to reach them, but they tend to have only one type of phone. Additionally, Nintendo is not a general purpose computer. I don't do dating, online banking, taxes, or groceries on the Switch. We don't hand out Switches to school children. The App Store's unhealthy product placements and ratings led to a race to the bottom. Apps are $0.99 with a lifetime of free updates. And Apple takes a 30% cut. They dehumanize engineers and small businesses. In a time of pestilence and famine, Apple's grain silos are overflowing. Yet they take from the mouths of the very people that helped build their platform with back-breaking and thankless effort.
- abakker 6y ago
  I agree that things used to be different, but, not usually better. apps used to be malware a lot more on desktops, no sites had great reliability records, and the OSes and devices were slow, heavy, and un optimized. Sure, phones are not desktops of 2001, but for many people that is a good thing. In fact, despite several attempts by different companies to create open phones, most people Demonstrate that they would rather buy and use closed ones. If you want true open OS on your phone, you probably have a niche desire. Personally, I would rather the App Store be more selective on whether apps really worked or not. More open certainly has appeal, but more low quality apps to wade through doesn’t appeal much.

echelon 6y ago

> I’d love to have the option to sideload apps on my iPhone. As would developers. Computing used to be free as in speech. You could host an `.exe` file on your website and point customers there to download it. Now most people use phones and >50% of Americans are out of your reach. Don't claim that security sandboxing, privacy, and protecting users is why this has been done. With the appropriate design, users can be protected and the freedom to compute can remain. Don't push the blame on the web not being a sufficiently native platform. Cross-platform APIs could have been built. It would have saved centuries of human effort writing both Android and iPhone apps. Think of all the human innovation capital wasted. Maybe some of these people could have been solving cancer instead. Don't compare this to Nintendo. If I write a video game in C++, I can distribute it on PC, Mac, Linux, Xbox, PlayStation, Switch, Android, iPhone, Steam, and on my website. Most gamers own more than one of these platforms at a time, making it easier to reach them, but they tend to have only one type of phone. Additionally, Nintendo is not a general purpose computer. I don't do dating, online banking, taxes, or groceries on the Switch. We don't hand out Switches to school children. The App Store's unhealthy product placements and ratings led to a race to the bottom. Apps are $0.99 with a lifetime of free updates. And Apple takes a 30% cut. They dehumanize engineers and small businesses. In a time of pestilence and famine, Apple's grain silos are overflowing. Yet they take from the mouths of the very people that helped build their platform with back-breaking and thankless effort.

abakker 6y ago
I agree that things used to be different, but, not usually better. apps used to be malware a lot more on desktops, no sites had great reliability records, and the OSes and devices were slow, heavy, and un optimized. Sure, phones are not desktops of 2001, but for many people that is a good thing. In fact, despite several attempts by different companies to create open phones, most people Demonstrate that they would rather buy and use closed ones. If you want true open OS on your phone, you probably have a niche desire. Personally, I would rather the App Store be more selective on whether apps really worked or not. More open certainly has appeal, but more low quality apps to wade through doesn’t appeal much.