4 ms·

> The issue isn't they should have to do it for you, it's that they've taken purposeful action to prevent anyone else from doing it. The crux of our disagreeme

> The issue isn't they should have to do it for you, it's that they've taken purposeful action to prevent anyone else from doing it. The crux of our disagreement may lie here. Apple did not take active steps to prevent other app stores from running on iOS. They spent many years of active effort to prevent any app from escaping the runtime sandbox. As a side effect, I cannot load arbitrary phone applications, keyboard handlers, or app stores. Demanding that Apple undo (or make exceptions in) this design, which provides runtime security across the OS, would be coerced development. It weakens the product, is contrary to corporate goals, and is not valuable to most customers. It is reasonable to argue that sideloading is less problematic than allowing alternate app stores. The sideloaded app would still run in the sandbox. But it would break an important layer of defense-in-depth, and why would Apple willingly take on that extra risk? I can understand why some customers would consider it convenient if they did, but I cannot support forcing them to do so. Re: switching costs: In what consumer relationship does the buyer not assume some risk in their decision? If I buy a car, but change my mind in a few months and prefer a different model, who eases that transition for me? Any complex product will come with compromises -- suitability for purpose is not guaranteed. The compromise on iOS is that you do not install arbitrary apps. Maybe this surprises some people, but they can return the device in-window, or they can choose differently next time. I do not see any level of extraordinary consumer harm in this practice.

AnthonyMouse 6y ago
> Demanding that Apple undo (or make exceptions in) this design, which provides runtime security across the OS, would be coerced development. At this point you're arguing that prohibiting them from doing something is coercing them to do something merely because they've already done it. Consider the case where they have an absolute monopoly on phones. There are only iPhones, nothing else. Would you still object to a requirement to allow other app stores because it's "coercing development"? What if they used the app store monopoly to monopolize the market for online payment processing, and from there the entire retail market? Can you imagine how that would harm the customer? > Re: switching costs: In what consumer relationship does the buyer not assume some risk in their decision? This is actually true for the large majority of consumer products. If you go to the grocery store and buy a carton of eggs, you don't have to buy the same company's sugar or flour or chocolate chips, and when you've bought those things and have them in your kitchen, you don't have to throw them out if you switch to another brand of eggs. Moreover, the issue with switching costs isn't that they exist -- for many complex products, they will -- it's that they create a barrier which thwarts the competitive pressure on the company that would otherwise prevent it from abusing its market position, so then you need something else to do that, e.g. antitrust. Having a monopoly isn't, in itself, illegal; abusing it is.

AnthonyMouse 6y ago

> Demanding that Apple undo (or make exceptions in) this design, which provides runtime security across the OS, would be coerced development. At this point you're arguing that prohibiting them from doing something is coercing them to do something merely because they've already done it. Consider the case where they have an absolute monopoly on phones. There are only iPhones, nothing else. Would you still object to a requirement to allow other app stores because it's "coercing development"? What if they used the app store monopoly to monopolize the market for online payment processing, and from there the entire retail market? Can you imagine how that would harm the customer? > Re: switching costs: In what consumer relationship does the buyer not assume some risk in their decision? This is actually true for the large majority of consumer products. If you go to the grocery store and buy a carton of eggs, you don't have to buy the same company's sugar or flour or chocolate chips, and when you've bought those things and have them in your kitchen, you don't have to throw them out if you switch to another brand of eggs. Moreover, the issue with switching costs isn't that they exist -- for many complex products, they will -- it's that they create a barrier which thwarts the competitive pressure on the company that would otherwise prevent it from abusing its market position, so then you need something else to do that, e.g. antitrust. Having a monopoly isn't, in itself, illegal; abusing it is.