3 ms·

You can have your cake and eat it. Sandboxing-type security is damn good on mobile OSes. We tend to associate desktop with the insecure but it's not because o

You can have your cake and eat it. Sandboxing-type security is damn good on mobile OSes. We tend to associate desktop with the insecure but it's not because of the lack of an app store. It's because desktop OSes do not sandbox, ask user permission, etc. Modern mobile OSes do so it's really night and day. This takes care of 90% of why mobile OSes are more secure than desktop ones - not app stores. I'm sure that there are other security concerns. I have security concerns about my house. I wouldn't like a camera in my house going to the police because of it. Some people would. But neither party should be forced into one way or the other. Let's give them a choice. Let's allow third party app stores.

threatofrain 6y ago
Apple's position is that if you want to deploy apps onto the iPhone, then you must provide a way for the user to signup with Apple as the intermediary. This actually increases user choices because for any app which has an existence outside the app store, users can now choose to either pay the conventional way or have Apple intermediate. Before users had to accept Microsoft's way or don't use Microsoft Office. I'm okay with 3rd party app stores, but I wouldn't be okay with losing the option to signup through Apple, which is more what companies care about.
- throwaway13337 6y ago
  Leveraging a monopoly into requiring a specific sort of login practice that reinforces the monopoly is an absurd sort of consumer choice. If Apple was really benevolent here, they'd have an open login platform that could be decentralized and implemented by third parties. That would be a real beneficial choice to the consumer. Of course, that's not what they're doing because their goal is not to promote consumer choice. It's to reinforce their monopoly by requiring deep integration on the part of the app developer.
  - schoolornot 6y ago
    The fact that Apple is requiring devs to add "Sign in with Apple" if the app supports any other social login is such a blatant overreach. I'm as much of a capitalist pig as the next guy but enough with the bullshit.
- cglong 6y ago
  I would understand where you're coming from if Apple allowed apps to mention that other signup methods exist.

threatofrain 6y ago

Apple's position is that if you want to deploy apps onto the iPhone, then you must provide a way for the user to signup with Apple as the intermediary. This actually increases user choices because for any app which has an existence outside the app store, users can now choose to either pay the conventional way or have Apple intermediate. Before users had to accept Microsoft's way or don't use Microsoft Office. I'm okay with 3rd party app stores, but I wouldn't be okay with losing the option to signup through Apple, which is more what companies care about.

throwaway13337 6y ago
Leveraging a monopoly into requiring a specific sort of login practice that reinforces the monopoly is an absurd sort of consumer choice. If Apple was really benevolent here, they'd have an open login platform that could be decentralized and implemented by third parties. That would be a real beneficial choice to the consumer. Of course, that's not what they're doing because their goal is not to promote consumer choice. It's to reinforce their monopoly by requiring deep integration on the part of the app developer.
- schoolornot 6y ago
  The fact that Apple is requiring devs to add "Sign in with Apple" if the app supports any other social login is such a blatant overreach. I'm as much of a capitalist pig as the next guy but enough with the bullshit.
cglong 6y ago
I would understand where you're coming from if Apple allowed apps to mention that other signup methods exist.