4 ms·

The problem with this argument is the existence of Android. The app ecosystem on Android is not appreciably better than iOS. Opening iOS to third party app stor

The problem with this argument is the existence of Android. The app ecosystem on Android is not appreciably better than iOS. Opening iOS to third party app store will likely just increase copyright infringement, leading to fewer paid apps.

kevincox 6y ago
I think it is. I have the best of both worlds. Most of the time I download apps from a store that is roughly as safe as the Apple store. (Maybe not quite as high, but I don't think that this changes the argument). However if there is some software that Google doesn't like I can install it myself. Or I can run a patch that some developer posted on GitHub and test it before it has been merged and published. It shows that there is some convenience from a "single" app store, such that people won't flood away and lead to a race to the bottom in quality. But it also shows that you can maintain that experience while allowing users to install whatever they want. So Apple is claiming that allowing people to install whatever they want, or having multiple App Stores will lead to crumbling of the convenient and secure ecosystem that they have created. However Android has shown that this is not the case.
- fjdjsmsm 6y ago
  95% of the public don’t even know what GitHub is. The vast majority of people aren’t going to run patches a developer posted there. Anyway, the argument was that the Apple app store was stifling app development. In your reply you yourself say the apps on the Google store are “Maybe not quite as high” quality.
  - mthoms 6y ago
    That quote was in reference to security, not quality.
  - AnthonyMouse 6y ago
    > 95% of the public don’t even know what GitHub is. The vast majority of people aren’t going to run patches a developer posted there. Which doesn't matter, because the person who is going to test your patch does, or the person who will write their own and submit it. Which makes the app better, for everybody. > Anyway, the argument was that the Apple app store was stifling app development. In your reply you yourself say the apps on the Google store are “Maybe not quite as high” quality. There is a difference between the quality of an app and the quality of a store. If Google Play contains all the same apps as Apple's app store, but they're higher quality because people hack on them more, it could still have a lower average quality if the store itself is less selective and there are also a bunch of lower quality apps. Which doesn't really matter because nobody is making you install those ones. Especially when you're not using the store for discovery to begin with, which they're increasingly useless at.
  - kevincox 6y ago
    I don't see why we can't have things if they aren't useful to 5% of the population and don't harm the rest. Also the "maybe not as high" comment was about security because you can make an argument that the human review is better. However there doesn't seem to be overwhelming evidence on either side comparing human review to mostly automated.
    - LexGray 6y ago
      Basically because that 5% is saying the other 95% should never have the option for a device without third party App Stores. It is a small minority trying to dictate what options the majority has available.
      - kevincox 6y ago
        No one is forcing anyone to install an app store. But this logic you are already being forced to switch to Android and install a third-party app store for applications that aren't allowed on the Apple App Store or Google Play. The reality is that you aren't being forced to do that today and won't be if you can install software without approval from Apple in iOS.
  - anoncake 6y ago
    If we ban everything most people don't care about, not much will be left. Long tails are long.

kevincox 6y ago

I think it is. I have the best of both worlds. Most of the time I download apps from a store that is roughly as safe as the Apple store. (Maybe not quite as high, but I don't think that this changes the argument). However if there is some software that Google doesn't like I can install it myself. Or I can run a patch that some developer posted on GitHub and test it before it has been merged and published. It shows that there is some convenience from a "single" app store, such that people won't flood away and lead to a race to the bottom in quality. But it also shows that you can maintain that experience while allowing users to install whatever they want. So Apple is claiming that allowing people to install whatever they want, or having multiple App Stores will lead to crumbling of the convenient and secure ecosystem that they have created. However Android has shown that this is not the case.

fjdjsmsm 6y ago
95% of the public don’t even know what GitHub is. The vast majority of people aren’t going to run patches a developer posted there. Anyway, the argument was that the Apple app store was stifling app development. In your reply you yourself say the apps on the Google store are “Maybe not quite as high” quality.
- mthoms 6y ago
  That quote was in reference to security, not quality.
- AnthonyMouse 6y ago
  > 95% of the public don’t even know what GitHub is. The vast majority of people aren’t going to run patches a developer posted there. Which doesn't matter, because the person who is going to test your patch does, or the person who will write their own and submit it. Which makes the app better, for everybody. > Anyway, the argument was that the Apple app store was stifling app development. In your reply you yourself say the apps on the Google store are “Maybe not quite as high” quality. There is a difference between the quality of an app and the quality of a store. If Google Play contains all the same apps as Apple's app store, but they're higher quality because people hack on them more, it could still have a lower average quality if the store itself is less selective and there are also a bunch of lower quality apps. Which doesn't really matter because nobody is making you install those ones. Especially when you're not using the store for discovery to begin with, which they're increasingly useless at.
- kevincox 6y ago
  I don't see why we can't have things if they aren't useful to 5% of the population and don't harm the rest. Also the "maybe not as high" comment was about security because you can make an argument that the human review is better. However there doesn't seem to be overwhelming evidence on either side comparing human review to mostly automated.
  - LexGray 6y ago
    Basically because that 5% is saying the other 95% should never have the option for a device without third party App Stores. It is a small minority trying to dictate what options the majority has available.
    - kevincox 6y ago
      No one is forcing anyone to install an app store. But this logic you are already being forced to switch to Android and install a third-party app store for applications that aren't allowed on the Apple App Store or Google Play. The reality is that you aren't being forced to do that today and won't be if you can install software without approval from Apple in iOS.
- anoncake 6y ago
  If we ban everything most people don't care about, not much will be left. Long tails are long.