13 ms·

I bought a $1000 device because Apple gets to decide what can run on it. I like iOS, and I like that Apple provides a great user experience on the device. I wa

• greggman3 6y ago
  What other things in your life would you accept similar limitation? Would you accept a house that only allowed furniture, food, books, electronics, devices from the company that built the house? Do you think it should be legal for a company to make a house with those conditions? Would accept a car that could only take gas, tires, oil, electricity from the company that built the car? Should it be legal to offer such a vehicle? You used to be able to buy a VCR and choose only to rent videos from Blockbuster video if you wanted "safe and clean". That didn't require any company making the VCR to force people to only to go their "safe and clean store". Apple doesn't need to force everyone on iOS to go to their store for you personally to continue to only get apps from their store.
  • bigyikes 6y ago
    If that house or car provides sufficiently compelling features or other benefits then, yeah, I would totally buy one. Should it be legal? I mean, why not? If you don’t want one, just don’t buy one. There are plenty of other houses and cars out there!
    • dx87 6y ago
      Sounds like a similar situation to buying a house that belongs to a HOA. You pay extra to give up freedoms, but have the peace of mind that you won't have obnoxious neighbors that make your house difficult to sell.
      • darksaints 6y ago
        Are you serious? HOAs not only do not prevent obnoxious neighbors, they virtually guarantee it.
      • Reelin 6y ago
        The difference being that (in all cases I'm aware of) you get some sort of representation in the HOA (ie voting on things). Also there are almost certainly limits in any given jurisdiction on the sort of rules an HOA can impose.
        • iguy 6y ago
          One reason for this difference is that HOAs are kind-of eternal. They need some way to adapt to changing circumstances. Whereas things you will only use for a few years, you get to vote with your wallet. (As you do when booking a hotel, or renting an apartment.)
      • kevingadd 6y ago
        So when I buy an iPhone I get a seat on Apple's board like I do when I join an HOA, right? I can vote on whether they should change these policies?
        • krab 6y ago
          In practice, it doesn't matter. Your share would be so tiny that voting with your wallet is equivalent. After all, people usually renew their phones every few years.
          • anoncake 6y ago
            By that logic let's get back to monarchy.
      • _qulr 6y ago
        HOAs are becoming ubiquitous. In my area, nearly every home built in the past 20 years is under a HOA, and of course there are older HOAs too. They're generally created by the home builder, not the home buyer. When I was buying a house, I didn't want an HOA. I hate them. But the options were extremely limited, and it was a seller's market. I think local governments like HOAs because they pay to maintain certain common areas, so the cities don't have to spend tax money on that. Also, local politicians are all on the take with... surprise, surprise... the home builders.
    • Aeolun 6y ago
      So now all housing companies start doing that, and we’re living in some unauthorized bread dystopia. That doesn’t sound like a world I want to live in.
      • romski 6y ago
        Not necessarily - ideally if you don’t want to live in that kind of a house then someone will want your business and cater to you.
        • _qulr 6y ago
          I don't want Apple's dictatorial control or Google's privacy invasion. Yet the market is not catering to me.
          • colejohnson66 6y ago
            Or more accurately: the market is reacting to what consumers want. Librem phones exist; they’re just not popular because most people don’t care about privacy.
            • _qulr 6y ago
              > Librem phones exist; they’re just not popular because What's the marketing budget of Purism? What's the total budget of Purism? In which stores are these phones available? Consumers can't buy what they don't even know about. Popularity requires availability. It requires awareness. These things are very costly. There are huge barriers to entry, especially in the smartphone market.
              • tpmoney 6y ago
                Marketing budgets are a function of sales too. If even the people that know about them (such as yourself) aren't buying them, they're not going to have a lot of money to pour into marketing.
    • michaeldorian 6y ago
      Exactly. Folks are acting as if the iPhone is the only phone.
    • eertami 6y ago
      >Should it be legal? I mean, why not? If you don’t want one, just don’t buy one. There are plenty of other houses and cars out there! Easy to say as an end-user, but what if you were a furniture maker by trade? You've been selling furniture for years and then houses start being built that can't use your furniture. Eventually these houses become the largest segment of the house market. Your furniture business goes bust.
  • nodamage 6y ago
    > Would you accept a house that only allowed furniture, food, books, electronics, devices from the company that built the house? Do you think it should be legal for a company to make a house with those conditions? Would I personally buy one? No. That doesn't mean it should be illegal to offer such a bundle. You can simply choose not to buy it. And guess what? According to current US law, as long as those limitations are disclosed to the buyer at the time of purchase, it is in fact, not illegal to offer such a bundle.
    • nitrogen 6y ago
      Maybe cars can provide a useful comparison. Car manufacturers can't prevent you from using aftermarket parts or different brands of gasoline on a car, and they can't deny warranty coverage because you had your car serviced somewhere else. Phones are becoming even more ubiquitous and essential than cars, so it makes sense to start looking at them from a similar perspective.
      • mehrdada 6y ago
        They cannot deny warranty coverage, but are not prevented from arbitrary hurdles that make it hard to create a compatible aftermarket part. They don't have to make that particularly easy.
      • kevingadd 6y ago
        Incidentally, Apple tries to treat phones this way and periodically ends up in legal battles over it - get your phone repaired by a third party instead of an Apple store? Have fun with features being disabled by anti-tamper mechanisms, etc. Obviously there are arguments to be made for it but it sure is unpleasant and shows you how they view their customers' freedoms.
        • mrexroad 6y ago
          Source?
          • 6y ago
  • Asmod4n 6y ago
    The only digital device that allows you to run anything you want on it is a pc. Consoles? Only allows you to run code they allow, since forever. CD/DVD Players? Only runs the code which gets flashed during manufacturing. TVs? Can’t run your own code. The list goes on, Apple was actually the first company which made a marketplace on a non PC device which had a overly cheap way to get your software on it and they even made it super easy and cheap for developers to get updates for their code on it, that was during a time where consoles where limited to physical media to ship your code to customers. Microsoft made you pay 5 digits or something similar outraging to release updates on Xbox once they had a digital store on it. Is Apples model outdated by now? Maybe. Should a court force them to practically change their model to the one of their competition? Well, why should anyone buy their stuff then anymore? It would practically made their brand worthless to me, they’d just become another pc shop, the last time they tried that it nearly made them bankrupt. That time made Apple what it is today, it’s in their DNA. They’ll fight anyone which tries to change that.
    • bmitc 6y ago
      Those are not the same class of products as modern smartphones.
      • msh 6y ago
        Whut is a console not the same class? Modern consoles are locked down pc's.
        • oneeyedpigeon 6y ago
          I would argue that they are not, as far as the typical consumer is concerned. Consoles have historically been single-purpose devices, that purpose being to play games. Whilst there have been varying moves across the three big manufacturers to include additional functionality, game-playing is still the single most important feature - you probably wouldn't even call it a console if it didn't play games.
      • donkeyd 6y ago
        Are cars and houses though?
  • jbverschoor 6y ago
    The financial markets? Game consoles? Televisions?
  • LexGray 6y ago
    People buy homes where homeowners associations dictate what goes in the yard. They pick schools where children are told how to dress and what they can say. There are whole cities who have kicked out strip joints. Those sorts of choices are made all the time and people should be allowed to live in a safe walled garden if they want to. The instant you let a porn shop open next to your school there are going to be issues that most would prefer to have prevented in the first place.
    • brailsafe 6y ago
      > The instant you let a porn shop open next to your school there are going to be issues that most would prefer to have prevented in the first place. I think it's less that "there are going to be issues" and more that people fear that there will be issues, and vote to remove what they think of as a threat. The instant you let someone plant azaleas instead of tulips there are going to be issues that most would prefer to have prevented in the first place.
    • bluecalm 6y ago
      You could still live in your walled garden if Epic wins. You would just get an additional option of using another garden if you prefer. This is unlike your examples where choices made (strip joints, what goes into the yard etc.) influence surroundings and life quality of others.
      • j2bax 6y ago
        I imagine people that want only the walled garden prefer their isn’t an alternative because chances are some publishers will just stop publishing within the walled garden.
        • nogabebop23 6y ago
          Well exactly! And the people who would complain the loudest are the ones here saying they like Apple's curation, want the 30% Apple tax and if developers don't want to pay it can go elsewhere. Then the developers could say, if you want our content come and get it, otherwise stop your compaining, if there were enough of you without apple forcing it, we'd pay the tax to reach you.
  • dclowd9901 6y ago
    What a silly question. You accept limitations on how plumbing, electrical and other matters operate because there is code. You accept limitations because sometimes the environment is a bit of a Wild West, and it’s nice to have someone making sure the software I’m running on the most important device in my life isn’t malicious.
    • eps 6y ago
      Bad example. Codes mandate how things should be done, not by whom.
      • sfshaw 6y ago
        If Apple currently sells you a house and you aren't permitted to put non-Apple electrical or furniture in, building codes are the framework by which third parties could be permitted to do so. We're already in the locked down house. Building codes are exactly what we need.
        • wcarey 6y ago
          What would that look like? How could Apple ensure that subscriptions made through a third party payment processor are cancelable without dark patterns?
  • xlii 6y ago
    I could say that we’re very often in situations like this. I buy gym membership but it’s not for me to decide who is the staff or what kind of equipment is there. I buy a car but I can’t drive anywhere but places I’m either legally allowed or where land owner lets me. I pay for the medical insurance and I don’t get to choose exact procedures I’m going to be signed to. I’d say that “I pay but I don’t have control” is common theme. Sure I can switch to other service provider but no perfect providers for any service exists. There are other mobile systems as well. One interesting thought behind what you wrote is that you compared software ecosystem to utility. I wouldn’t go as far. OS is OS and if you don’t like it you legally can jailbreak device albeit the provider in this case can choose not to support it, which it does.
    • Aeolun 6y ago
      > I buy a car but I can’t drive anywhere but places I’m either legally allowed or where land owner lets me. Note that you are not allowed to drive everywhere. You can absolutely drive your car anywhere you want. Including off a cliff if you are so inclined. This is more akin to shutting off the engine if you are not driving on an Toyota approved road.
      • xlii 6y ago
        And in iOS perspective that's jailbreak. You can have not-supported ecosystem and it's completely legal. You probably don't know this, but current car manufacturers can stop car from starting if a) maintenance isn't done in a way it should be (see AdBlue) b) maintenance is done with non-original parts Sure - b) is the premium and luxury segment, but you don't see people raging about this. Because - as with smartphone - it's a choice that they made. iPhone isn't a necessity. It's a choice. If you don't like it you can choose one of many other mobile systems or opt for a dumb phone.
        • fomine3 6y ago
          > b) is the premium and luxury segment, but you don't see people raging about this. Because - as with smartphone - it's a choice that they made. I saw people complaining at HN. "You can choose other than iPhone" is invalid because it's iPhone/Android duopoly market.
  • donkeyd 6y ago
    > What other things in your life would you accept similar limitation? I have a Playstation that only allows me to play games that comply with DRM, unless I root the Playstation (if that's even possible). I have a coffee machine, that only accepts cups from a specific manufacturer, because they own the patent. I own a car that only allows me to run maps supplied by the manufacturer and the updates are expensive. I knew all of this when I bought this stuff. Complaining about the app store when you buy an iPhone is like complaining about the airplanes after you bought a house near an airport.
    • bluescrn 6y ago
      I think there’s a line that needs to be drawn between ‘general purpose computing device’ and ‘content consumption device’ One of these is OK to be all locked down and centered around a monopolistic content store. The other one really isn’t. Smartphones and tablets have been trying to move from one category to the other, and this is where the problem lies.
      • Karunamon 6y ago
        The problem is that the difference between those two devices boils down ENTIRELY to the addition of DRM. The only thing stopping a game console from being a general purpose computer are the platform creators preventing you from running the code of your choice on hardware you own. This distinction is purely arbitrary, user-hostile, and monopolistic, and so it is not worth respecting.
      • manojlds 6y ago
        Also, consoles are sold at a loss. Would be happier with Apple if they too sell at a loss. Another point - Kindles are also content consumption (and sold at a loss or were) but they still allow me to load any book that I have.
        • anoncake 6y ago
          > Also, consoles are sold at a loss. Which means they're to cheap. Customers need accurate price information or they will buy things that were more expensive to produce than they're worth.
  • bambax 6y ago
    You're describing a horrible, terrifying but very likely future. We should fight against it as hard as we can.
  • the_other 6y ago
    > Would accept a car that could only take gas, tires, oil, electricity from the company that built the car? No. But for some reason I do pay for Spotify, Neflix, Disney and some others and for a bunch of media I never would have before. I can’t use the media from one service in the player from another. Even the Apple TV app doesn’t work that way: it takes you to the DRM holder’s player. Trade-offs. > Should it be legal to offer such a vehicle? Yes, til we discover the extent of impact of such a model. The house example is very interesting. Currently, no, I wouldn’t buy into that ecosystem. However, I am going through a process of updating my views on land and building ownership. I’m tending towards personal home ownership (and land) being anathema to stable society. Call me a communist in this area. So, if houses had “compatible” power and furniture, AND they were owned by commons, I might accept it. We already have standardised power outlets.
  • seabass 6y ago
    >What other things in your life would you accept similar limitation? You probably have access to only one power company. A small handful of internet providers. And your car example is quickly becoming the reality as well.
• d3nj4l 6y ago
  In that case, you lose nothing even if Epic wins: the msot hey can do is set up their own store, and nobody's forcing you to use their store. If there's an app you want to get on a store you don't want to install, just don't download that app. "Free choice" works both ways: you can choose to remain within Apple's ecosystem, and others should have the choice to go out of it if they want.
  • disparate_dan 6y ago
    Well that’s not strictly true because of the effects of fragmentation. A few years ago I could get practically anything I wanted to watch from Netflix; today I’d have to manage subscriptions and search and watch queues and UX across seven or eight different accounts just to get the same size catalog. I really hope that doesn’t happen with App stores too - but it seems to me that Epic is trying to do to gaming what Disney+ did to video content.
    • d3nj4l 6y ago
      If you want that, it is in your best interest that Apple reduces their cut. Content creators shouldn't have to put up with Apple's obscene 30% cut. On the PC market, Epic has been indisputably a boon for game developers. Its cut is much lower and their exclusivity contracts pumped millions into development. Steam could've been in a much stronger position if they took a more reasonable cut.
    • heavyset_go 6y ago
      To the end user who only uses Apple's app store, there is no functional difference between an app not being available in Apple's app store, and an app being available in a different App Store. If Apple's app store was truly competitive, then Apple would have no problem keeping developers within their walled garden.
      • enra 6y ago
        Try buying games on PC. I’d love to buy all my games on steam and keep them there. But no, every publisher now wants to run their own store with their own social network (usually one that doesn’t work well). There is truly a difference running one fairly good launcher/store vs 10 different slow start and resource hog stores. Another example: would you rather listen music on Spotify, Apple Music or would you like to install Sony Music, Universal Music, Warner Music etc and always try to guess which artist is on which store.
• sudosysgen 6y ago
  Then just don't use anything else than the Apple Store? Why should everyone else have to suffer the fact that you can't prevent yourself from using third-party stores?
  • cmorgan31 6y ago
    Why buy a device known for the creation of a walled garden as one of its defining personas? I didn’t buy into the iOS ecosystem for flexibility of App Stores. I bought like many others because it allows for an ease of use free of tinkering. They have a huge competitor whose differentiator is literally what people are requesting. Why don’t the consumers which need more freedom support the companies who actually want to service that demand?
    • Reelin 6y ago
      > They have a huge competitor whose differentiator is literally what people are requesting. Except that said competitor is actively hostile to your privacy. The device market is also incredibly confusing to navigate - many competing independent companies, unreliable security updates depending on said manufacturer, and a wide hardware performance range. And regardless, all of this is entirely irrelevant from the perspective of a company that wishes to run their own marketplace spanning every significant platform out there.
      • greendesk 6y ago
        First of all, the said competitor is not the only game in town. There are other alternatives- such as feature phones or open-source mobile OSes. If your are requesting an app for such OSes, then you have to find an economic incentive for its development. But there are other alternatives. Secondly, if you are requesting that one side in the current court (Apple) is forced legally to take a different economic incentive, then why would they remain as privacy-oriented? Times will change. Without the freedom to choose incentives, a company’s structure will change. There are risks to taking Apple’s privacy-oriented approach for granted.
• whalabi 6y ago
  Hypothetically speaking, what would you see as the downside of Apple allowing users to install alternate app stores? Presumably almost every user would just use Apple's app store and be satisfied with that, but for everyone else they'd be able to use their iPhone with much more freedom.
  • judge2020 6y ago
    Depending on how it's installed (the two ends of the spectrum being either downloading other app stores via Apple's App Store or downloading them from safari) it can cause issues with how Apple's standard of "no malware" stays even when downloading apps via those app stores. For an example, with alternative app stores it's very likely you could release a jailbreak and have it installable without a computer since most (non-checkm8) jailbreaks break out of the sandbox and exploit their way to root access and installing an dpkg frontend. That's all well and good until someone does the same but hides jailbreak code in an inconspicuous app that initiates the jailbreak in the background, and instead of installing dpkg it installs a keylogger/keychain dumper that sends all passwords to a remote server. Either Apple will still need to review these, have IPAs notarized, or have contracts in place with each app store developer to ensure the same app review quality. I don't see epic accepting any of these scenarios without a fight.
    • Aeolun 6y ago
      > Either Apple will still need to review these, have IPAs notarized, or have contracts in place with each app store developer to ensure the same app review quality. I don't see epic accepting any of these scenarios without a fight. As Windows shows us, none of these need to be true. Don’t download random shit from people you shouldn’t trust, and you won’t have malware and/or keyloggers.
      • Reelin 6y ago
        Ditto for Linux and Android. I'm sure I could find a sketchy closed source kernel module somewhere out there that's actually malware. That's not a problem in practice though because I'd have to leave the confines of the official repositories for my OS and intentionally seek it out. (I suppose NPM could be an interesting point of discussion here though.)
• heavyset_go 6y ago
  You'll be relieved to know that being allowed to use another app store on the hardware you own wouldn't hinder your relationship with Apple at all. There are plenty of Apple customers who do want to control what runs on their devices, which is why some people are excited about these developments.
• Aeolun 6y ago
  > I was not in any way coerced into buying said device, and there are a plethora of other options My apologies, but I don’t see what options I have? Either I go with Apple, or I go with Google. Going with Google is akin to giving away all your privacy, going with Apple is akin to giving up all your control. Neither is really a great option, so we need the law to step in and correct what the free market (apparently) does not.
  • greendesk 6y ago
    You can go with a feature phone or you can look at one of the small open-source Mobile OS. Firefox OS springs to mind. No, you would not be able to run Fortnite on those.
    • Aeolun 6y ago
      There is always the option to go live in a cave and forget about all this shit. Just like the ones you mentioned it’s not really an equivalent solution.
      • pteraspidomorph 6y ago
        You speak of false equivalences after equating Android with iOS... There are countless different Android distros. Most Android phones can be unlocked easily and/or are sold unlocked in certain markets. All software components are swappable. The OS can be run entirely Google-free, if you want. The Play Store is default, but optional. Sure, the mainstream hardware manufacturers sell preinstalled Android distros that require a bit of menu diving in order to enable free software installation, but there's little that's stopping you, as a customer.
      • greendesk 6y ago
        I do not know of a functionality not available for development on a open source Mobile OS. I agree that it costs time, effort and money to develop each functionality. I fail to see the choice between only iOS and only-Android. It is not mandated to choose only between these two.
  • 6y ago
• deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
• jonplackett 6y ago
  It wouldn’t do you any harm if epic was allowed to set up its own store. You just don’t use it if you don’t want to. Just like any other store. If you don’t like the look of it, don’t go inside. The AppStore will still be there for you just the same as always.
  • RMPR 6y ago
    I was thinking about the same thing, but it can (and will) create a situation where each big Corp will have its own store with its apps unavailable on the Appstore obviously.
    • jonplackett 6y ago
      That will only happens if they gain the credibility to run it. I would expect a lot of people (above poster included, and myself to an extent) will prefer the AppStore for most of their apps. It will force those AppStore’s to compete, for developers and for users. And isn’t that what capitalism is meant to be all about?
• spirobel 6y ago
  I think thats a fetish. There is no shame to it. But I think its important to realize that when it comes to apple we leave the territory of buying phones and entering the territory of bdsm.
• fsflover 6y ago
  Did I miss anywhere on Apple.com explanation for the users that they are a walled garden? If it’s not there, then I bet most people are not aware while buying and simply buy due to the brand.
• oneeyedpigeon 6y ago
  That's fair, but you must accept that the level of control is variable, and you have no say in what it is. It's in the ongoing hands of Apple, not you the purchaser of the product. You're accepting a situation in which, theoretically, you could wake up tomorrow with none of your apps available, including those you've paid for, including those you depend upon, possibly for income. I'm not saying necessarily that such a situation should be impossible, but I think many consumers don't recognise it.
• AsyncAwait 6y ago
  Ok, so you keep using only the AppStore and we gain the ability to side-load. There's no loss for you and a gain for those who are not happy with the current situation. It doesn't have to be an either/or.
  • jpttsn 6y ago
    But today Microsoft e.g. has to put Excel in the App Store. In your proposal, Microsoft might move it to their own store. I don’t want that. I like that Excel is in the App Store.
• bambax 6y ago
  The solution is to allow multiple app stores. Want the safety that Apple provides? Don't install other stores. Maybe block it in the settings. Want more choice? Install other stores.
• bumblebritches5 6y ago
  You wouldn't be forced to use other app stores... As for me, I don't like that Gab and Voat are blocked from every iOS device in existence. If I want to read that content, I should have the right to. and don't even start with that huR dUr corporations don't have to have free speech legal argument. Free speech is an idea, that companies violate to push their opinions onto society. You think George Washington and Thomas Jefferson thought the idea of censoring speech by companies would ever happen beyond the right of the corporation to associate with who it pleases? Absolutely not, they could not and didn't imagine society becoming so dominated by just a few companies and nobody doing a damn thing to stop it. Ma Bell got broken up for much less.
• amelius 6y ago
  Fine. Just use the Apple App-store instead of any other App-store such as Epic's.
• arvinsim 6y ago
  Your argument amounts to " My preference is better than yours"
• fredguth 6y ago
  This is the argument all monopolies use. If they open up, they cannot warrant the quality. The telecom operators could say the same thing not to open their networks. But at that time there was no consumers defending the telecoms. There are ways to open up, they already do for Macs. The argument is weak.
• nogabebop23 6y ago
  Why can't you still use the app store with it's curation and filtering, and 30% tax if you want, while others skip it and pay 30% less or the money goes to the developer?