6 ms·

Raises hand. I don't wanna have to worry about stupid computer shit when I'm just trying to use my iPad or iPhone as a tool to accomplish something else. Drawi

Raises hand. I don't wanna have to worry about stupid computer shit when I'm just trying to use my iPad or iPhone as a tool to accomplish something else. Drawing, playing music, reading, writing, edutainment for the kids, very occasionally a game. Maybe the odd SSH session. If I decide I want some software to help me with any of those things I just want it to be in the App Store, and I just want it to use the App Store payment system. I don't want competing app stores because that might mean that sometimes what I want isn't on the Apple one, following Apple's rules about spying on my and otherwise behaving as badly as desktop software and webapps do these days. It means I have to search more than one store. Now we're veering into the stupid computer shit I don't want to have to worry about, again.

romanoderoma 6y ago
That doesn't address the issue: those who would can't. You don't lose anything if you don't want to. You should have to keep doing what you already do.
- spanhandler 6y ago
  > That doesn't address the issue: those who would can't. Then buy any other general computing product on the market. I'd be more sympathetic to this concern if Android didn't exist. Meanwhile it does, and the users who picked Apple did it because they don't care about this, they don't care very much about this, or because they actively want the App Store restrictions and the ecosystem that they create. > You don't lose anything if you don't want to. I very well might, though. Changes to rules change how actors behave in a system. The way software developers and publishers behave on iOS could change in ways that I don't like if they're able to viably distribute software outside the App Store. That might be OK, except forcing developers and publishers to follow the App Store rules is part of the appeal of the devices. If that'd been a major sticking point for me, I could have bought Android.
  - romanoderoma 6y ago
    > Then buy any other general computing product on the market That's not how free market works. And it's a very silly objection. Android is a licensed platform.from Google, but Google does not make the majority of devices. Apple manufacturs the devices, but they sell them to me locked in the ecosystem they profit from. Imagine being unable of refueling because your car does not work with standard oil pumps and you had to go to Apple licensed gas station whom Apple charges 30% to. They would be prohibited from selling the car. > I very well might, though. But you wouldn't if you don't change your behaviour. > Changes to rules change how actors behave in a system That's exactly what many want from Apple. Change the rules. Nobody is asking Apple to relax their safety rules inside their walled garden. If they can't allow sideloading, they're not as good as I thought. > I could have bought Android. I don't buy it. If Apple sold Android powered iPhones you would still buy an iPhone, you're are buying the brand, not the product.
    - spanhandler 6y ago
      > That's not how free market works. It... isn't? How not? > Imagine being unable of refueling because your car does not work with standard oil pumps and you had to go to Apple licensed gas station whom Apple charges 30% to. Then I'd probably buy a competing brand of car, if that bothered me? You know, one of my other choices on the market? Like how there are a bunch of Android device vendors and a couple Linux mobile vendors that I could choose if Apple's App Store model bothered me, rather than being something I actively want? I am 100% not following how this isn't a market working. The choices people are making may not be the ones you prefer—happens to me all the time with markets—but there are choices. > That's exactly what many want from Apple. > Change the rules. Many developers and publishers, maybe. I'm very much unconvinced that's what the subset of users who are aware of this issue in the first place, want, for the most part. I think if it were a major problem for them they'd have bought an Android device, or something else. > If they can't allow sideloading, they're not as good as I thought. They do allow sideloading, it's just fairly inconvenient. They can't allow a form of it that's convenient enough to allow other app stores to thrive, without changing the character of the ecosystem for their users. I don't think any amount of being "good" at what they do would change that. > If Apple sold Android powered iPhones you would still buy an iPhone, you're are buying the brand, not the product. OK, cool, guess continuing this exchange is pointless.
  - simion314 6y ago
    >Changes to rules change how actors behave in a system. The way software developers and publishers behave on iOS could change in ways that I don't like Probably most apps would still be on store and hopefully you would get a cheaper version from the developer website. What is clear but you probably don't want to admit is Apple is not fighting here for your safety but for extracting mroe money, if they were not that greedy Epic,Spotify would not have started this wars and you would have been safe in the wallgarden and extremely satisfied that the other people inside can't escape either.
    - spanhandler 6y ago
      > What is clear but you probably don't want to admit is Apple is not fighting here for your safety but for extracting mroe money, if they were not that greedy Epic,Spotify would not have started this wars and you would have been safe in the wallgarden and extremely satisfied that the other people inside can't escape either. Why wouldn't I admit that? Of course the situation benefits them. I just doubt there's a way to give me all the aspects of their devices & ecosystem that I value, that doesn't also benefit them. I'd love to see them drop the cut they take, for instance. That being so high benefits me not at all, so far as I can tell. ... and if someone comes out with devices that actually compete with the specific sort of product they offer, including the integrated & closed app store and restrictions on what apps are allowed to do, and takes a lower cut of app store sales, then Apple might have to reduce their cut, too. Or this current scuffle might end up not changing the app store rules much, but dropping the cut they take substantially—personally, that's an outcome I'd love.
      - simion314 6y ago
        IMO the ideal situation for Apple fans is that Apple is forced to offer a choice to developers, either pay a fair fixed charge(like you would pay for webhosting, you have different tiers or plans and fortuneteller with web hosting you have true competition) or a developer could decide to give Apple 30% cut. Probably most developers would chose to pay the fixed fee and the Apple users will have cheaper apps and subscriptions(in app payments) while enjoying the restrictions that nobody can have the option to escape the wallgarden(not sure how are you happy with this though, say in a country Apple is forced to remove all chat apps that are encrypted including browsers and then Apple fans would just say `you should have predicted this,sell the phone and use Android`)
izacus 6y ago
Nothing what you say has absolutely ANYTHING to do with you being locked out from ever running your own software on Apple devices. This is a completely false argument you're putting up - you can HAVE all of those protections while STILL having the option of replacing protected software with less safe one. Please stop peddling this false argument.
- spanhandler 6y ago
  It's not false though? Games are a thing. In the sense of how systems run and how actors make decisions in it, not in terms of video games. Any change that makes it convenient to run a competing app store will almost certainly change the experience of using iOS, even for those who choose not to use an alternative app store. If there's a way to allow easily & conveniently running one's own software without letting competing app stores work, I'm all for it. In fact there is a way to run your own software, it's just inconvenient, because time-limited so you have to re-install it periodically, which effectively kills any possibility of running a successful app store via that method.
- braythwayt 6y ago
  You're right in theory, but possibly not in practice. Consider two vendors: A and G. A provides a full walled garden. G provides a walled garden, but lets you side-load whatever you like, you can ignore the apps in the garden. Everyone making apps for A puts them in the walled garden, so if you own an A, you buy an app from the garden. For G, vendors decide for themselves whether to use the walled garden. Many choose to sell direct and avoid both the markup and the hassle of getting their apps approved. They also get to make even more money by embedding surveillance capitalism into their apps if they sell direct. Or include completely unmoderated and unregulated adtech. As a user, isn't G better than A, since I have the choice? It is better than A, provided that every app in A's walled garden is also in G's walled garden. However, if in practice the apps I want to use are in A's walled garden, but sold direct on G to avoid the 30% hit, then in practice, as a user, I am better off with A if what I want are apps from the walled garden. Of course, I can always do my research to figure out whether a side-loaded app on G is safe to use. But if what I wanted was to buy apps without having to think about them, then I can be better off with A in practice even though in theory, G provides everything A provides, and more. Now, is there really a problem getting all the apps I use on A from G's walled garden? I don't personally know, since I don't want to go to the trouble of sorting out what is available in G's store versus what I have to sideload. So there's plenty of room to argue that in practice, G is superior to A. But I do not think it is necessarily superior.

romanoderoma 6y ago

That doesn't address the issue: those who would can't. You don't lose anything if you don't want to. You should have to keep doing what you already do.

spanhandler 6y ago
> That doesn't address the issue: those who would can't. Then buy any other general computing product on the market. I'd be more sympathetic to this concern if Android didn't exist. Meanwhile it does, and the users who picked Apple did it because they don't care about this, they don't care very much about this, or because they actively want the App Store restrictions and the ecosystem that they create. > You don't lose anything if you don't want to. I very well might, though. Changes to rules change how actors behave in a system. The way software developers and publishers behave on iOS could change in ways that I don't like if they're able to viably distribute software outside the App Store. That might be OK, except forcing developers and publishers to follow the App Store rules is part of the appeal of the devices. If that'd been a major sticking point for me, I could have bought Android.
- romanoderoma 6y ago
  > Then buy any other general computing product on the market That's not how free market works. And it's a very silly objection. Android is a licensed platform.from Google, but Google does not make the majority of devices. Apple manufacturs the devices, but they sell them to me locked in the ecosystem they profit from. Imagine being unable of refueling because your car does not work with standard oil pumps and you had to go to Apple licensed gas station whom Apple charges 30% to. They would be prohibited from selling the car. > I very well might, though. But you wouldn't if you don't change your behaviour. > Changes to rules change how actors behave in a system That's exactly what many want from Apple. Change the rules. Nobody is asking Apple to relax their safety rules inside their walled garden. If they can't allow sideloading, they're not as good as I thought. > I could have bought Android. I don't buy it. If Apple sold Android powered iPhones you would still buy an iPhone, you're are buying the brand, not the product.
  - spanhandler 6y ago
    > That's not how free market works. It... isn't? How not? > Imagine being unable of refueling because your car does not work with standard oil pumps and you had to go to Apple licensed gas station whom Apple charges 30% to. Then I'd probably buy a competing brand of car, if that bothered me? You know, one of my other choices on the market? Like how there are a bunch of Android device vendors and a couple Linux mobile vendors that I could choose if Apple's App Store model bothered me, rather than being something I actively want? I am 100% not following how this isn't a market working. The choices people are making may not be the ones you prefer—happens to me all the time with markets—but there are choices. > That's exactly what many want from Apple. > Change the rules. Many developers and publishers, maybe. I'm very much unconvinced that's what the subset of users who are aware of this issue in the first place, want, for the most part. I think if it were a major problem for them they'd have bought an Android device, or something else. > If they can't allow sideloading, they're not as good as I thought. They do allow sideloading, it's just fairly inconvenient. They can't allow a form of it that's convenient enough to allow other app stores to thrive, without changing the character of the ecosystem for their users. I don't think any amount of being "good" at what they do would change that. > If Apple sold Android powered iPhones you would still buy an iPhone, you're are buying the brand, not the product. OK, cool, guess continuing this exchange is pointless.
- simion314 6y ago
  >Changes to rules change how actors behave in a system. The way software developers and publishers behave on iOS could change in ways that I don't like Probably most apps would still be on store and hopefully you would get a cheaper version from the developer website. What is clear but you probably don't want to admit is Apple is not fighting here for your safety but for extracting mroe money, if they were not that greedy Epic,Spotify would not have started this wars and you would have been safe in the wallgarden and extremely satisfied that the other people inside can't escape either.
  - spanhandler 6y ago
    > What is clear but you probably don't want to admit is Apple is not fighting here for your safety but for extracting mroe money, if they were not that greedy Epic,Spotify would not have started this wars and you would have been safe in the wallgarden and extremely satisfied that the other people inside can't escape either. Why wouldn't I admit that? Of course the situation benefits them. I just doubt there's a way to give me all the aspects of their devices & ecosystem that I value, that doesn't also benefit them. I'd love to see them drop the cut they take, for instance. That being so high benefits me not at all, so far as I can tell. ... and if someone comes out with devices that actually compete with the specific sort of product they offer, including the integrated & closed app store and restrictions on what apps are allowed to do, and takes a lower cut of app store sales, then Apple might have to reduce their cut, too. Or this current scuffle might end up not changing the app store rules much, but dropping the cut they take substantially—personally, that's an outcome I'd love.
    - simion314 6y ago
      IMO the ideal situation for Apple fans is that Apple is forced to offer a choice to developers, either pay a fair fixed charge(like you would pay for webhosting, you have different tiers or plans and fortuneteller with web hosting you have true competition) or a developer could decide to give Apple 30% cut. Probably most developers would chose to pay the fixed fee and the Apple users will have cheaper apps and subscriptions(in app payments) while enjoying the restrictions that nobody can have the option to escape the wallgarden(not sure how are you happy with this though, say in a country Apple is forced to remove all chat apps that are encrypted including browsers and then Apple fans would just say `you should have predicted this,sell the phone and use Android`)

izacus 6y ago

Nothing what you say has absolutely ANYTHING to do with you being locked out from ever running your own software on Apple devices. This is a completely false argument you're putting up - you can HAVE all of those protections while STILL having the option of replacing protected software with less safe one. Please stop peddling this false argument.

spanhandler 6y ago
It's not false though? Games are a thing. In the sense of how systems run and how actors make decisions in it, not in terms of video games. Any change that makes it convenient to run a competing app store will almost certainly change the experience of using iOS, even for those who choose not to use an alternative app store. If there's a way to allow easily & conveniently running one's own software without letting competing app stores work, I'm all for it. In fact there is a way to run your own software, it's just inconvenient, because time-limited so you have to re-install it periodically, which effectively kills any possibility of running a successful app store via that method.
braythwayt 6y ago
You're right in theory, but possibly not in practice. Consider two vendors: A and G. A provides a full walled garden. G provides a walled garden, but lets you side-load whatever you like, you can ignore the apps in the garden. Everyone making apps for A puts them in the walled garden, so if you own an A, you buy an app from the garden. For G, vendors decide for themselves whether to use the walled garden. Many choose to sell direct and avoid both the markup and the hassle of getting their apps approved. They also get to make even more money by embedding surveillance capitalism into their apps if they sell direct. Or include completely unmoderated and unregulated adtech. As a user, isn't G better than A, since I have the choice? It is better than A, provided that every app in A's walled garden is also in G's walled garden. However, if in practice the apps I want to use are in A's walled garden, but sold direct on G to avoid the 30% hit, then in practice, as a user, I am better off with A if what I want are apps from the walled garden. Of course, I can always do my research to figure out whether a side-loaded app on G is safe to use. But if what I wanted was to buy apps without having to think about them, then I can be better off with A in practice even though in theory, G provides everything A provides, and more. Now, is there really a problem getting all the apps I use on A from G's walled garden? I don't personally know, since I don't want to go to the trouble of sorting out what is available in G's store versus what I have to sideload. So there's plenty of room to argue that in practice, G is superior to A. But I do not think it is necessarily superior.