20 ms·

> You cannot install apps on... a phone that you own without paying Apple THIS is the principal issue. I cannot indeed install what I want on a device that I o

> You cannot install apps on... a phone that you own without paying Apple THIS is the principal issue. I cannot indeed install what I want on a device that I own. This is absolutely ridiculous.

zepto 6y ago
Then don’t buy an iPhone? It’s sold as a closed ecosystem, and we all know that’s what it is. I’ve been seriously looking at this: https://www.pine64.org/pinephone/ https://www.pine64.org/pinephone/ If we want an open ecosystem, we need to support it.
- Apocryphon 6y ago
  Alternatively, jailbreak an iPhone.
- wayneftw 6y ago
  My customers have iPhones. They want to install some private, custom business software that I built for them. Most of the time, I can build a web app to satisfy their needs. Sometimes I can't and that's when things get really annoying. iPhones have 50% of the market in the US where I do business. Either I have to go through their review process or register for the Enterprise app development program. All for phones that they already made money on when they sold it to us. Maybe another option for iPhone users is to form a giant co-op corporation, get a D&B number, "hire" everybody who wants custom apps as "employees" and start our own internal app store... it'll cost us $299 per year. Anyone interested?
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - zepto 6y ago
    You can do ad-hoc distribution, depending on how many users you are supporting.
- fomine3 6y ago
  "Just don't buy" isn't valid argument for antitrust issue.
  - zepto 6y ago
    It is when there is a substitute good, which in this case clearly does exist.
parliament32 6y ago
You don't really own it till you jailbreak it.
Teknoman117 6y ago
That's what I like about some of the Android phones. Some lets you disable the boot security and run whatever you want to. That being said, obviously the situation isn't perfect because most vendors only make the binary blobs available for android kernels and userspace... We're a long way from a flagship class phone that you can install distros as freely as you can on a PC. I'm well aware of the Pine Phone and Librem, but they're both rather slow compared to a 2019 or 2020 smartphone.
fsflover 6y ago
This is why everyone who requires freedom should consider GNU/Linux phones Librem 5 or Pinephone.
- Animats 6y ago
  I actually do all that stuff. I run desktop Linux. I don't have a Google account, a Facebook account, a LinkedIn account, or an Instagram account. I have an unlocked phone, on which I run F-Droid and only only open source apps. All Google user-visible apps have been removed. (Still stuck with Google Play Services for now.) It's a pain. This is not a solution for the average user. I can't even use Uber, for example.
  - osn9363739 6y ago
    And you have to find that stuff fun. Otherwise it is an infuriating experience. Not one I would recommend to a non technical person. I loved using lineageos but still had a back up iPhone for some stuff. Stuff was constantly breaking. I've since gone back to using just the iPhone.
    - Animats 6y ago
      No, I don't find it fun. I just refuse to run an OS with ads. Or agree to overreaching terms of service.
  - 838hhh 6y ago
    You can use Uber through your web browser!
WilTimSon 6y ago
It's one that people often brush aside as "you made that choice when you got an iPhone" or "at least that prevents scamming apps and low-quality apps" but both of those don't seem right to me. For the first one, criticising a product while owning it isn't illegitimate. You can like a product for its strength but still see its incredible flaws. For the second one, this doesn't account for tens of great apps we miss out on because they just won't make it on AppStore's rules.
- nemothekid 6y ago
  >For the first one, criticising a product while owning it isn't illegitimate. You can like a product for its strength but still see its incredible flaws. The problem is what you are calling a "flaw" is a feature to others. If you don't like that "feature", others are saying you should leave the ecosystem rather than lobby Apple to "fix" it. >For the second one, this doesn't account for tens of great apps we miss out on because they just won't make it on AppStore's rules. It's acceptable collateral damage, and if those apps are truly great then someone people will (and have) switch to another platform. Just like if I get an XBox I can't play Playstation games. IMO, if this was truly a great issue, people wouldn't choose iPhones. If you really care about being able to install software on your device, then don't buy an iPhone. It's even easier to make this decision because there is very few iPhone exclusive applications that do not have alternatives on Android. To me however, it comes across as the same lip service Linux gets where for users all these "power features" are important, but everyone just buys a macbook instead.
  - swiley 6y ago
    This argument made sense before the filesystem was encrypted. Also there's no reason the bootloader couldn't wipe the flash when it's told to load an unsigned kernel.
  - int_19h 6y ago
    Everyone used to buy a Macbook, but not anymore - on one hand, precisely because of all these Apple's policies not being power-user-friendly, but also because there are other alternatives, WSL especially. As for lack of sideloading being a feature - lack of features is only a feature, when those features can get in the way. The ability to opt into sideloading - as it's done on Android and Win10 - is not intrusive for those users who choose to not enable it. So, no, this can't really be sold under the guise of caring about the users. It's a policy that is in place to protect Apple's interests, and benefits no-one else.
causality0 6y ago
How did we go from a world where Microsoft got a half billion dollar fine for bundling a web browser with their OS to one where the vendor can stop the entire world from installing your app?
- prewett 6y ago
  Because Microsoft leveraged a monopoly (Windows) to gain another monopoly (browser), which is illegal. App stores didn't exist prior to Apple's. Also, Apple's store didn't work on competing phones (not that there were any at the time), nor did it work on either macOS or Windows, it only worked on Apple's iPhones. It's like Amazon controlling what Kindle books exist, or Disney controlling what you can see at Disneyworld or buy at Disney+.
  - brendoelfrendo 6y ago
    So Apple leverages a monopoly (iOS) to gain another monopoly (App Store). It seems like an apples/apples comparison to me.
    - smabie 6y ago
      I would hardly call iOS a monopoly.
    - scarface74 6y ago
      A monopoly with less than 50% market share?
    - ls612 6y ago
      iOS is not a monopoly
      - huhtenberg 6y ago
        For Apple devices it is.
        6y ago
malka 6y ago
Should we sue Sony, Nintendo and Microsoft as well ?

> You cannot install apps on... a phone that you own without paying Apple THIS is the principal issue. I cannot indeed install what I want on a device that I own. This is absolutely ridiculous.

zepto 6y ago

Then don’t buy an iPhone? It’s sold as a closed ecosystem, and we all know that’s what it is. I’ve been seriously looking at this: https://www.pine64.org/pinephone/ https://www.pine64.org/pinephone/ If we want an open ecosystem, we need to support it.

Apocryphon 6y ago
Alternatively, jailbreak an iPhone.
wayneftw 6y ago
My customers have iPhones. They want to install some private, custom business software that I built for them. Most of the time, I can build a web app to satisfy their needs. Sometimes I can't and that's when things get really annoying. iPhones have 50% of the market in the US where I do business. Either I have to go through their review process or register for the Enterprise app development program. All for phones that they already made money on when they sold it to us. Maybe another option for iPhone users is to form a giant co-op corporation, get a D&B number, "hire" everybody who wants custom apps as "employees" and start our own internal app store... it'll cost us $299 per year. Anyone interested?
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- zepto 6y ago
  You can do ad-hoc distribution, depending on how many users you are supporting.
fomine3 6y ago
"Just don't buy" isn't valid argument for antitrust issue.
- zepto 6y ago
  It is when there is a substitute good, which in this case clearly does exist.

parliament32 6y ago

You don't really own it till you jailbreak it.

Teknoman117 6y ago

That's what I like about some of the Android phones. Some lets you disable the boot security and run whatever you want to. That being said, obviously the situation isn't perfect because most vendors only make the binary blobs available for android kernels and userspace... We're a long way from a flagship class phone that you can install distros as freely as you can on a PC. I'm well aware of the Pine Phone and Librem, but they're both rather slow compared to a 2019 or 2020 smartphone.

fsflover 6y ago

This is why everyone who requires freedom should consider GNU/Linux phones Librem 5 or Pinephone.

Animats 6y ago
I actually do all that stuff. I run desktop Linux. I don't have a Google account, a Facebook account, a LinkedIn account, or an Instagram account. I have an unlocked phone, on which I run F-Droid and only only open source apps. All Google user-visible apps have been removed. (Still stuck with Google Play Services for now.) It's a pain. This is not a solution for the average user. I can't even use Uber, for example.
- osn9363739 6y ago
  And you have to find that stuff fun. Otherwise it is an infuriating experience. Not one I would recommend to a non technical person. I loved using lineageos but still had a back up iPhone for some stuff. Stuff was constantly breaking. I've since gone back to using just the iPhone.
  - Animats 6y ago
    No, I don't find it fun. I just refuse to run an OS with ads. Or agree to overreaching terms of service.
- 838hhh 6y ago
  You can use Uber through your web browser!

WilTimSon 6y ago

It's one that people often brush aside as "you made that choice when you got an iPhone" or "at least that prevents scamming apps and low-quality apps" but both of those don't seem right to me. For the first one, criticising a product while owning it isn't illegitimate. You can like a product for its strength but still see its incredible flaws. For the second one, this doesn't account for tens of great apps we miss out on because they just won't make it on AppStore's rules.

nemothekid 6y ago
>For the first one, criticising a product while owning it isn't illegitimate. You can like a product for its strength but still see its incredible flaws. The problem is what you are calling a "flaw" is a feature to others. If you don't like that "feature", others are saying you should leave the ecosystem rather than lobby Apple to "fix" it. >For the second one, this doesn't account for tens of great apps we miss out on because they just won't make it on AppStore's rules. It's acceptable collateral damage, and if those apps are truly great then someone people will (and have) switch to another platform. Just like if I get an XBox I can't play Playstation games. IMO, if this was truly a great issue, people wouldn't choose iPhones. If you really care about being able to install software on your device, then don't buy an iPhone. It's even easier to make this decision because there is very few iPhone exclusive applications that do not have alternatives on Android. To me however, it comes across as the same lip service Linux gets where for users all these "power features" are important, but everyone just buys a macbook instead.
- swiley 6y ago
  This argument made sense before the filesystem was encrypted. Also there's no reason the bootloader couldn't wipe the flash when it's told to load an unsigned kernel.
- int_19h 6y ago
  Everyone used to buy a Macbook, but not anymore - on one hand, precisely because of all these Apple's policies not being power-user-friendly, but also because there are other alternatives, WSL especially. As for lack of sideloading being a feature - lack of features is only a feature, when those features can get in the way. The ability to opt into sideloading - as it's done on Android and Win10 - is not intrusive for those users who choose to not enable it. So, no, this can't really be sold under the guise of caring about the users. It's a policy that is in place to protect Apple's interests, and benefits no-one else.

causality0 6y ago

How did we go from a world where Microsoft got a half billion dollar fine for bundling a web browser with their OS to one where the vendor can stop the entire world from installing your app?

prewett 6y ago
Because Microsoft leveraged a monopoly (Windows) to gain another monopoly (browser), which is illegal. App stores didn't exist prior to Apple's. Also, Apple's store didn't work on competing phones (not that there were any at the time), nor did it work on either macOS or Windows, it only worked on Apple's iPhones. It's like Amazon controlling what Kindle books exist, or Disney controlling what you can see at Disneyworld or buy at Disney+.
- brendoelfrendo 6y ago
  So Apple leverages a monopoly (iOS) to gain another monopoly (App Store). It seems like an apples/apples comparison to me.
  - smabie 6y ago
    I would hardly call iOS a monopoly.
  - scarface74 6y ago
    A monopoly with less than 50% market share?
  - ls612 6y ago
    iOS is not a monopoly
    - huhtenberg 6y ago
      For Apple devices it is.
      - 6y ago

malka 6y ago

Should we sue Sony, Nintendo and Microsoft as well ?