5 ms·

> Fuck your security and fuck your walled gardens. Sigh. I guess we're going to remove a product category (the relatively safe, very consistent, managed platfo

> Fuck your security and fuck your walled gardens. Sigh. I guess we're going to remove a product category (the relatively safe, very consistent, managed platform you can use when you just want to use a computer and not also manage a computer) and call that consumer choice, then? I'd prefer instead that more companies make something similarly-nice and compete with Apple. I have lots and lots of options I can use if I want to have to worry about a bunch of silly stuff like "will this .exe or 3rd-party repo pwn me?" or "is this payment prompt fake?" when I'm just trying to play the piano, make art, track recipes, balance my books, or whatever. I use them all the time, in fact. When I don't want to worry about that crap I use iOS. It's nice having any option in that category. I do not want to go back to having zero of them. I don't care that 3rd party browsers on it have to render with the WebKit engine. Not even a little.

throwaway140820 6y ago
I am sorry, I don't understand. Will you be suddenly forced to install all the shit from all the sources? Nobody is forcing you right? How does your position change with the new one? Are you arguing having firefox and ublock on iphone will suddenly make it more pleasant to browse the web and you don't like it? I am sure you are not.
- spanhandler 6y ago
  > I am sorry, I don't understand. Will you be suddenly forced to install all the shit from all the sources? Nobody is forcing you right? How does your position change with the new one? No, but it may mean some apps will use different payment prompts & systems, different cancellation systems for subscriptions, have different return policies, and so on, and it may mean that sometimes an app I want requires me to either go sign up on another app store or else not use the app, while right now 100% of apps on the platform are on one store, so that is never an issue. If I want to deal with that mental overhead and risk I can go use my PC. I have options if I want that experience. I don't on my phone and tablets. > Are you arguing having firefox and ublock on iphone will suddenly make it more pleasant to browse the web and you don't like it? I am sure you are not. Effectively every site works alright in Safari. It has to. It might not anymore if Google can banner-ad enough of the iOS ecosystem onto Chrome using their own renderer instead of Webkit. My kindergartener's school iPad won't come with some cheaply-made app marketed to schools that contains an entire web engine (makes cross-platform easier, don't you know) that has a bug that lets it access the open web, bypassing the OS web controls. It can't, because if it uses a webview it has to use Webkit, which obeys the OS settings. That's a good thing. For that matter half the apps on the app store aren't the mobile equivalent of Electron, shipping with an entire browser on board, for the same reason of developer convenience, wasting my disk space and killing my battery, because they're simply not allowed to do that. Again, good thing. I don't want to have to try to figure out the damn stack an app was built on before clicking "buy". It's bad enough they let React Native and Phonegap and such through the review process. I wish they didn't. I don't know how it's so hard to understand that the locking down is a feature to many users. I want more devices that do that. Everyone worries about some dark future of only locked-down devices but here I am annoyed that there's a monopoly on those, while I've got a ton of options for my other computing needs. If I want a safe, low-maintenance, but still highly-capable machine for some non-tech-nerd in my life, which they'll be able to use pretty well totally independently, I have one option. That sucks.
  - BlueDingo 6y ago
    Why would a professional device for adults ship with the same locked down protections of a kindergarten computing device? Your children are not in danger from antitrust enforcement.
    - eanzenberg 6y ago
      Most people want a secure device and are not tech savvy. Apple here is providing a service of a curated App store.
      - heavyset_go 6y ago
        And yet iOS exploits are cheaper than Android exploits, because there are so many iOS vulnerabilities. https://www.forbes.com/sites/jeanbaptiste/2019/09/04/why-zerodium-will-pay-2-5-million-for-anyone-who-can-hack-android-but-only-2-million-for-an-iphone/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/jeanbaptiste/2019/09/04/why-zer...
    - spanhandler 6y ago
      > Why would a professional device for adults ship with the same locked down protections of a kindergarten computing device? Windows 10 ships with a firewall, schools enforce firewall rules on their PCs, therefore Surface ships with the same locked-down protections of a kindergarten computing device? If that's not the reasoning here, I guess I'm just not following. > Your children are not in danger from antitrust enforcement. No, but the only easy to use, highly safe, but still capable and low-maintenance computing option out there might get somewhat worse. I'd rather have more competition in that category, not in the category of "app stores on iPhones". One of those is all I want. I want someone to make an iOS killer & related ecosystem (yes, including an app store) so damn good that I gleefully and enthusiastically switch—or failing that, good enough that Apple feels the heat of competition and makes some major improvements. I don't love having just the one option in that product category.
Silhouette 6y ago
I guess we're going to remove a product category (the relatively safe, very consistent, managed platform you can use when you just want to use a computer and not also manage a computer) and call that consumer choice, then? Isn't the point here that Apple could still provide good security features in iOS and still provide their app store with whatever security or other vetting measures they consider appropriate and allow users to install software from other sources if they so wish? Users who want Apple's version of safety and security can stick with the default configuration on their devices and install apps only from Apple's store, just like today. However, both they and Apple would pay a price if the Apple app store was then too restrictive in its policies and/or tried to charge excessively: developers who weren't prepared to provide their apps on those terms could sell them through other stores. Then for those apps, Apple wouldn't get their cut, while users who insisted on sticking with only Apple's store wouldn't have the same range of apps available to them. However, no other users or developers would have their hands tied by Apple's policies. I fail to see how this would restrict consumer choice more than the status quo.
- spanhandler 6y ago
  > Users who want Apple's version of safety and security can stick with the default configuration on their devices and install apps only from Apple's store, just like today. > while users who insisted on sticking with only Apple's store wouldn't have the same range of apps available to them. Exactly. From my perspective my i-devices get worse if that happens, for exactly that reason. I'm stuck choosing between availability of software and safety & consistency. Again. Like everywhere else. > I fail to see how this would restrict consumer choice more than the status quo. Clearly, the choice of being able to buy a phone or tablet where 100% of the apps available on it, and 100% of payments for digital services in apps, go through one app store and one payment system, would be gone. My choice to buy a device that works that way would be gone, and i-devices would join literally all the other choices I have which do not work that way.
  - Silhouette 6y ago
    I understand your point, but I think your argument is based on an implicit assumption that may not be valid: that the items you like, the apps in this case, will still be available at all if the restrictions continue. For example, apparently even if you were able to buy the Apple device you want with the restrictions you want, you still can't get Fortnite on it now. The difference between your position and mine is that in mine, you don't get to choose whether everyone else is limited in the same way, and neither does Apple.
danShumway 6y ago
When Google was forced by the EU to provide prominent search engine options during Android setup, did that mean that Google as a search engine went away? Did all of your search results became crap because DuckDuckGo was available on the device now? Or were consumers free to keep using Google search the same way they always had, and was there literally no downside at all to the people who wanted to keep using Google? Nobody is talking about forcing you to sideload apps. If you want to stay in your walled garden, stay there. But the rest of us should get a choice. There are a bunch of people on HN arguing simultaneously that: A) Consumers want Apple's walled garden and Apple is meeting their needs, and B) The option to install apps from a 3rd party source would immediately cause consumers to jump ship from Apple's official store, and there would be no incentive for companies to release apps on the official store, and security on the device would be ruined forever. Both of those arguments can't be true at the same time. If you're providing a service that consumers want, you don't have to force them into it. If forcing consumers not to sideload apps is the only reason why consumers use Apple's store, then maybe that's a good sign that consumers don't want what Apple is providing. If consumers do want what Apple is offering, if consumers do want a unified storefront with strict moderation for everything, then there'll still be plenty of market pressure for most commercial apps to release on the official store.
- spanhandler 6y ago
  > A) Consumers want Apple's walled garden and Apple is meeting their needs, > and > B) The option to install apps from a 3rd party source would immediately mean that consumers all jump ship from Apple's official store and there would be no incentive for companies to release apps on the official store, and security on the device would be ruined forever. > Both of those arguments can't be true at the same time. If you're providing a service that consumers want, you don't have to force them into it. If forcing consumers not to sideload apps is the only reason why consumers use Apple's store, then maybe that's a good sign that consumers don't want what Apple is providing. The reason this looks like a contradiction is because it's not the actual position. Mine, at least, is that 1) yes to A, and I'm not speculating, I personally feel that way as an iOS user, but then 2) no, on B: the concern isn't that users will jump ship from the App Store (I don't care, why would I?) but that developers will (and that I care about).
heavyset_go 6y ago
> When I don't want to worry about that crap I use iOS This is a false dichotomy. You still need to worry about that. Exploits for iOS are cheaper than exploits for Android[1], because exploits for iOS are so abundant[2]. [1] https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2019/09/for-the-first-time-ever-android-0days-cost-more-than-ios-exploits/ https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2019/09/for-t... [2] https://www.securityweek.com/zerodium-expects-ios-exploit-prices-drop-it-announces-surplus https://www.securityweek.com/zerodium-expects-ios-exploit-pr...
grey-area 6y ago
> Sigh. I guess we're going to remove a product category (the relatively safe, very consistent, managed platform you can use when you just want to use a computer and not also manage a computer) and call that consumer choice, then? Here's a better suggestion: Stop Apple abusing their platform to force their customers to use their own book store by making others impractical. Stop Apple abusing their monopoly to force their customers to use one browser. Stop Apple abusing their monopoly to gouge everyone that wants to be on their platform with a 30% fee on every transaction (10% would be more reasonable, 3% a bare minimum to cover costs).
- spanhandler 6y ago
  I would be entirely thrilled to see another OS & platform with similarly-pro-user rules and restrictions and its own app store compete with Apple, tweaking those parts to fix the problems you call out (and others!), and either beat Apple or force them to improve a bunch. Except the browser thing—that's already fine IMO, and I think keeping other browser engines off is very nice because it keeps the Electron-type riff-raff out of the store, among other reasons, and besides it's just the browser engine that's restricted. Again, what I'd rather see is another iOS-like OS & platform come on the market, also only one browser engine allowed, but for that browser engine to be better than Mobile WebKit, forcing Apple to improve or at least giving me another option in the same product category as i-devices, but with a browser engine I like better.
  - grey-area 6y ago
    We don't need another platform, Apple just needs to be prevented from abusing their power over the platform to coerce customers and partners to give them a large cut of each transaction. It's easily done with a bit of legislation. Apple don't keep other browsers off to keep electron out or make things safer, it is to ensure they have complete control of the web platform, which otherwise is a viable alternative to their app store, just the sort of alternative you're suggesting in fact. Capitalism needs regulation to work well, if unregulated, it very quickly gives rise to robber barons and bullying of both consumers and smaller companies. Unfettered capitalism leads to monopolies, coercion and rent-seeking.

throwaway140820 6y ago

I am sorry, I don't understand. Will you be suddenly forced to install all the shit from all the sources? Nobody is forcing you right? How does your position change with the new one? Are you arguing having firefox and ublock on iphone will suddenly make it more pleasant to browse the web and you don't like it? I am sure you are not.

spanhandler 6y ago
> I am sorry, I don't understand. Will you be suddenly forced to install all the shit from all the sources? Nobody is forcing you right? How does your position change with the new one? No, but it may mean some apps will use different payment prompts & systems, different cancellation systems for subscriptions, have different return policies, and so on, and it may mean that sometimes an app I want requires me to either go sign up on another app store or else not use the app, while right now 100% of apps on the platform are on one store, so that is never an issue. If I want to deal with that mental overhead and risk I can go use my PC. I have options if I want that experience. I don't on my phone and tablets. > Are you arguing having firefox and ublock on iphone will suddenly make it more pleasant to browse the web and you don't like it? I am sure you are not. Effectively every site works alright in Safari. It has to. It might not anymore if Google can banner-ad enough of the iOS ecosystem onto Chrome using their own renderer instead of Webkit. My kindergartener's school iPad won't come with some cheaply-made app marketed to schools that contains an entire web engine (makes cross-platform easier, don't you know) that has a bug that lets it access the open web, bypassing the OS web controls. It can't, because if it uses a webview it has to use Webkit, which obeys the OS settings. That's a good thing. For that matter half the apps on the app store aren't the mobile equivalent of Electron, shipping with an entire browser on board, for the same reason of developer convenience, wasting my disk space and killing my battery, because they're simply not allowed to do that. Again, good thing. I don't want to have to try to figure out the damn stack an app was built on before clicking "buy". It's bad enough they let React Native and Phonegap and such through the review process. I wish they didn't. I don't know how it's so hard to understand that the locking down is a feature to many users. I want more devices that do that. Everyone worries about some dark future of only locked-down devices but here I am annoyed that there's a monopoly on those, while I've got a ton of options for my other computing needs. If I want a safe, low-maintenance, but still highly-capable machine for some non-tech-nerd in my life, which they'll be able to use pretty well totally independently, I have one option. That sucks.
- BlueDingo 6y ago
  Why would a professional device for adults ship with the same locked down protections of a kindergarten computing device? Your children are not in danger from antitrust enforcement.
  - eanzenberg 6y ago
    Most people want a secure device and are not tech savvy. Apple here is providing a service of a curated App store.
    - heavyset_go 6y ago
      And yet iOS exploits are cheaper than Android exploits, because there are so many iOS vulnerabilities. https://www.forbes.com/sites/jeanbaptiste/2019/09/04/why-zerodium-will-pay-2-5-million-for-anyone-who-can-hack-android-but-only-2-million-for-an-iphone/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/jeanbaptiste/2019/09/04/why-zer...
  - spanhandler 6y ago
    > Why would a professional device for adults ship with the same locked down protections of a kindergarten computing device? Windows 10 ships with a firewall, schools enforce firewall rules on their PCs, therefore Surface ships with the same locked-down protections of a kindergarten computing device? If that's not the reasoning here, I guess I'm just not following. > Your children are not in danger from antitrust enforcement. No, but the only easy to use, highly safe, but still capable and low-maintenance computing option out there might get somewhat worse. I'd rather have more competition in that category, not in the category of "app stores on iPhones". One of those is all I want. I want someone to make an iOS killer & related ecosystem (yes, including an app store) so damn good that I gleefully and enthusiastically switch—or failing that, good enough that Apple feels the heat of competition and makes some major improvements. I don't love having just the one option in that product category.

Silhouette 6y ago

I guess we're going to remove a product category (the relatively safe, very consistent, managed platform you can use when you just want to use a computer and not also manage a computer) and call that consumer choice, then? Isn't the point here that Apple could still provide good security features in iOS and still provide their app store with whatever security or other vetting measures they consider appropriate and allow users to install software from other sources if they so wish? Users who want Apple's version of safety and security can stick with the default configuration on their devices and install apps only from Apple's store, just like today. However, both they and Apple would pay a price if the Apple app store was then too restrictive in its policies and/or tried to charge excessively: developers who weren't prepared to provide their apps on those terms could sell them through other stores. Then for those apps, Apple wouldn't get their cut, while users who insisted on sticking with only Apple's store wouldn't have the same range of apps available to them. However, no other users or developers would have their hands tied by Apple's policies. I fail to see how this would restrict consumer choice more than the status quo.

spanhandler 6y ago
> Users who want Apple's version of safety and security can stick with the default configuration on their devices and install apps only from Apple's store, just like today. > while users who insisted on sticking with only Apple's store wouldn't have the same range of apps available to them. Exactly. From my perspective my i-devices get worse if that happens, for exactly that reason. I'm stuck choosing between availability of software and safety & consistency. Again. Like everywhere else. > I fail to see how this would restrict consumer choice more than the status quo. Clearly, the choice of being able to buy a phone or tablet where 100% of the apps available on it, and 100% of payments for digital services in apps, go through one app store and one payment system, would be gone. My choice to buy a device that works that way would be gone, and i-devices would join literally all the other choices I have which do not work that way.
- Silhouette 6y ago
  I understand your point, but I think your argument is based on an implicit assumption that may not be valid: that the items you like, the apps in this case, will still be available at all if the restrictions continue. For example, apparently even if you were able to buy the Apple device you want with the restrictions you want, you still can't get Fortnite on it now. The difference between your position and mine is that in mine, you don't get to choose whether everyone else is limited in the same way, and neither does Apple.

danShumway 6y ago

When Google was forced by the EU to provide prominent search engine options during Android setup, did that mean that Google as a search engine went away? Did all of your search results became crap because DuckDuckGo was available on the device now? Or were consumers free to keep using Google search the same way they always had, and was there literally no downside at all to the people who wanted to keep using Google? Nobody is talking about forcing you to sideload apps. If you want to stay in your walled garden, stay there. But the rest of us should get a choice. There are a bunch of people on HN arguing simultaneously that: A) Consumers want Apple's walled garden and Apple is meeting their needs, and B) The option to install apps from a 3rd party source would immediately cause consumers to jump ship from Apple's official store, and there would be no incentive for companies to release apps on the official store, and security on the device would be ruined forever. Both of those arguments can't be true at the same time. If you're providing a service that consumers want, you don't have to force them into it. If forcing consumers not to sideload apps is the only reason why consumers use Apple's store, then maybe that's a good sign that consumers don't want what Apple is providing. If consumers do want what Apple is offering, if consumers do want a unified storefront with strict moderation for everything, then there'll still be plenty of market pressure for most commercial apps to release on the official store.

spanhandler 6y ago
> A) Consumers want Apple's walled garden and Apple is meeting their needs, > and > B) The option to install apps from a 3rd party source would immediately mean that consumers all jump ship from Apple's official store and there would be no incentive for companies to release apps on the official store, and security on the device would be ruined forever. > Both of those arguments can't be true at the same time. If you're providing a service that consumers want, you don't have to force them into it. If forcing consumers not to sideload apps is the only reason why consumers use Apple's store, then maybe that's a good sign that consumers don't want what Apple is providing. The reason this looks like a contradiction is because it's not the actual position. Mine, at least, is that 1) yes to A, and I'm not speculating, I personally feel that way as an iOS user, but then 2) no, on B: the concern isn't that users will jump ship from the App Store (I don't care, why would I?) but that developers will (and that I care about).

heavyset_go 6y ago

> When I don't want to worry about that crap I use iOS This is a false dichotomy. You still need to worry about that. Exploits for iOS are cheaper than exploits for Android[1], because exploits for iOS are so abundant[2]. [1] https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2019/09/for-the-first-time-ever-android-0days-cost-more-than-ios-exploits/ https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2019/09/for-t... [2] https://www.securityweek.com/zerodium-expects-ios-exploit-prices-drop-it-announces-surplus https://www.securityweek.com/zerodium-expects-ios-exploit-pr...

grey-area 6y ago

> Sigh. I guess we're going to remove a product category (the relatively safe, very consistent, managed platform you can use when you just want to use a computer and not also manage a computer) and call that consumer choice, then? Here's a better suggestion: Stop Apple abusing their platform to force their customers to use their own book store by making others impractical. Stop Apple abusing their monopoly to force their customers to use one browser. Stop Apple abusing their monopoly to gouge everyone that wants to be on their platform with a 30% fee on every transaction (10% would be more reasonable, 3% a bare minimum to cover costs).

spanhandler 6y ago
I would be entirely thrilled to see another OS & platform with similarly-pro-user rules and restrictions and its own app store compete with Apple, tweaking those parts to fix the problems you call out (and others!), and either beat Apple or force them to improve a bunch. Except the browser thing—that's already fine IMO, and I think keeping other browser engines off is very nice because it keeps the Electron-type riff-raff out of the store, among other reasons, and besides it's just the browser engine that's restricted. Again, what I'd rather see is another iOS-like OS & platform come on the market, also only one browser engine allowed, but for that browser engine to be better than Mobile WebKit, forcing Apple to improve or at least giving me another option in the same product category as i-devices, but with a browser engine I like better.
- grey-area 6y ago
  We don't need another platform, Apple just needs to be prevented from abusing their power over the platform to coerce customers and partners to give them a large cut of each transaction. It's easily done with a bit of legislation. Apple don't keep other browsers off to keep electron out or make things safer, it is to ensure they have complete control of the web platform, which otherwise is a viable alternative to their app store, just the sort of alternative you're suggesting in fact. Capitalism needs regulation to work well, if unregulated, it very quickly gives rise to robber barons and bullying of both consumers and smaller companies. Unfettered capitalism leads to monopolies, coercion and rent-seeking.