4 ms·

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

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.
danShumway 6y ago
> "you made that choice when you got an iPhone" or "at least that prevents scamming apps and low-quality apps" There's a weird dichotomy that comes up in those kinds of arguments, where we simultaneously assume that people are so smart they'll know exactly what phone ecosystem they're opting into and what the consequences are, but also so stupid that they can't be taught to make informed decisions about which app stores to use. Not to mention that a giant chunk of Apple's user retention policy is to make it as difficult and annoying to get out of their ecosystem as possible, which (imo) makes the "users would just switch if they were unhappy" argument really disingenuous. Apple is now tying credit cards to their phones. You're really going to get rid of your credit card because you're unhappy with the app selection on your phone? That kind of user lock-in can't be separated from their efforts to force developers to use Apple payments for recurring subscriptions -- it's not just about the 30% revenue. It's also a nice way to make sure that switching from iOS to Android means literally all of your digital subscriptions break, and that it's impossible for you to cancel them or migrate them without going through Apple.

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.

danShumway 6y ago

> "you made that choice when you got an iPhone" or "at least that prevents scamming apps and low-quality apps" There's a weird dichotomy that comes up in those kinds of arguments, where we simultaneously assume that people are so smart they'll know exactly what phone ecosystem they're opting into and what the consequences are, but also so stupid that they can't be taught to make informed decisions about which app stores to use. Not to mention that a giant chunk of Apple's user retention policy is to make it as difficult and annoying to get out of their ecosystem as possible, which (imo) makes the "users would just switch if they were unhappy" argument really disingenuous. Apple is now tying credit cards to their phones. You're really going to get rid of your credit card because you're unhappy with the app selection on your phone? That kind of user lock-in can't be separated from their efforts to force developers to use Apple payments for recurring subscriptions -- it's not just about the 30% revenue. It's also a nice way to make sure that switching from iOS to Android means literally all of your digital subscriptions break, and that it's impossible for you to cancel them or migrate them without going through Apple.