4 ms·

Can users and developers who are in favor of keeping the App Store as is form an advocacy group too? I’ve been collecting a list of arguments in favor of maint

Can users and developers who are in favor of keeping the App Store as is form an advocacy group too? I’ve been collecting a list of arguments in favor of maintaining the status quo on iOS and I’ve yet to see anyone offer a good solution to these: ---- The problems with letting all apps advertise external payment systems: • Someone may publish a free app to avoid paying anything to Apple, and then charge users [an asston of] money to ""unlock"" via an alternate payment system. • Users may not be able to see a list of all in-app purchases (and their guaranteed prices) as they can on the App Store, without downloading the app. • Sharing your payment details and other information with multiple entities, and having to continually trust each of them (e.g. to not abuse or leak). • Confused users may clog up Apple's customer support with complaints related to third-party payment systems. • Angry users may demand Apple to offer refunds for shit that was paid for via third-party payment systems. ---- The problems with allowing third-party app stores on iOS: • How will iOS sandboxing be enforced for apps delivered via third-party stores? Will those apps still have to be submitted to and signed by Apple? • Store apps would need the privilege to write binaries on your iPhone. How will that privilege be regulated to prevent abuse? e.g. what happens if a store starts writing malware? • Users may sometimes have to wait longer for an app to update on one store than on others (as already happens on Steam vs GoG). • Developers would no longer be assured that they will have access to literally all the users that iOS has, by publishing on just one store. • You would have to submit to each store, wait for approval on each of them, update for each of them... to come close to the userbase that you can currently access by just publishing once on the App Store. • Developers will no longer all play by the same rules. One store may allow some content while another may prohibit it. • Controversial content like porn may still ultimately be bound by Apple's ruling on such matters, rendering moot the freedom of third-party stores in what kind of apps they may offer. • iOS Parental Control and Screen Time restrictions may be ineffective on other stores (and browsers too if third-party rendering engines were allowed). • If an app or game is exclusive to a store that a user isn't already using, they would have to create a new account and maintain an additional app just to access that one exclusive. • Not all stores may be compatible with the iOS backup and restore system, or the APIs for app-thinning and on-demand resources. ---- To resolve many of those issues, Apple would have to ultimately step in anyway. The need for third-party stores is really not that great to offset the advantages offered by the current system.

ketzu 6y ago
> One store may allow some content while another may prohibit it. Yes, that's a good thing. > How will iOS sandboxing be enforced for apps delivered via third-party stores? This seems like a non-problem. Sandboxing is a local OS feature. > e.g. what happens if a store starts writing malware? The same thing that happens when the apple and google app stores do that. Reputation loss, or more likely: Nothing. > How will that privilege be regulated to prevent abuse? Why does it have to be? Why can't the used give an app the permission to act as an app store and install apps? This permission exists in android but can only be granted by the phone vendor (or google) > Controversial content like porn may still ultimately be bound by Apple's ruling on such matters, rendering moot the freedom of third-party stores in what kind of apps they may offer. It shouldn't be. > iOS Parental Control and Screen Time restrictions may be ineffective on other stores (and browsers too if third-party rendering engines were allowed). How so? Especially screen time restrictions is a non-issue for different stores. How is the rendering engine for a browser the restricting factor for content control? All other points are questions of convenience. Also many of these problems have the opposite too: * What about content that is deemed inappropriate by apple, but users don't share that value judgement? * What about web features that are not implemented by safari, but users might want? * What about apps that are not implemented for iOS because the developers don't want to or can not abide by apples rules or got removed by apple for no clear reason?
- Razengan 6y ago
  > Yes, that's a good thing. re: One store may allow some content while another may prohibit it. Please don't half-quote selectively: "Developers will no longer all play by the same rules." > This seems like a non-problem. Sandboxing is a local OS feature. re: How will iOS sandboxing be enforced for apps delivered via third-party stores? For an app to be sandboxed it must be submitted to Apple and signed. Ergo: You would have to go through Apple anyway. > The same thing that happens when the apple and google app stores do that. Reputation loss, or more likely: Nothing. re: what happens if a store starts writing malware? There has been no cross-app malware on the iOS App Store. > Why does it have to be? re: How will that privilege be regulated to prevent abuse? If a third-party store and/or the apps served by it contain malware, but users aren't aware of it (e.g. cryptocurrency mining, data harvesting, and other silent exploitation of users' devices), it's good to have someone who is able to remotely shut those apps down. > It shouldn't be. re: Controversial content like porn may still ultimately be bound by Apple's ruling... ...are you seriously saying porn and "adult" apps (like prostitution services and even more questionable material) should be allowed on Apple devices? You're literally out to forcibly dismantle the entire value proposition of a company's products. Are you going to force Microsoft/Sony/Nintendo to do the same for their consoles? Why only Apple? Just because they're too successful? They became this successful because of these restrictions. People want a curated platform. > How so? Especially screen time restrictions is a non-issue for different stores. How is the rendering engine for a browser the restricting factor for content control? re: iOS Parental Control and Screen Time restrictions may be ineffective on other stores (and browsers too if third-party rendering engines were allowed). They have to go through the official APIs to adhere to system-wide content restrictions set by a user, which requires reviewing and signing by Apple, otherwise they could just skip the official APIs and ignore any parental control settings etc. > All other points are questions of convenience. You haven't given any solutions to any of the questions, other than: • Don't use it. • It's not a problem. The same answers apply to the status quo: • Don't use Apple devices. • A single App Store is not a problem for the majority of users: All other points are questions of convenience.

ketzu 6y ago

> One store may allow some content while another may prohibit it. Yes, that's a good thing. > How will iOS sandboxing be enforced for apps delivered via third-party stores? This seems like a non-problem. Sandboxing is a local OS feature. > e.g. what happens if a store starts writing malware? The same thing that happens when the apple and google app stores do that. Reputation loss, or more likely: Nothing. > How will that privilege be regulated to prevent abuse? Why does it have to be? Why can't the used give an app the permission to act as an app store and install apps? This permission exists in android but can only be granted by the phone vendor (or google) > Controversial content like porn may still ultimately be bound by Apple's ruling on such matters, rendering moot the freedom of third-party stores in what kind of apps they may offer. It shouldn't be. > iOS Parental Control and Screen Time restrictions may be ineffective on other stores (and browsers too if third-party rendering engines were allowed). How so? Especially screen time restrictions is a non-issue for different stores. How is the rendering engine for a browser the restricting factor for content control? All other points are questions of convenience. Also many of these problems have the opposite too: * What about content that is deemed inappropriate by apple, but users don't share that value judgement? * What about web features that are not implemented by safari, but users might want? * What about apps that are not implemented for iOS because the developers don't want to or can not abide by apples rules or got removed by apple for no clear reason?

Razengan 6y ago
> Yes, that's a good thing. re: One store may allow some content while another may prohibit it. Please don't half-quote selectively: "Developers will no longer all play by the same rules." > This seems like a non-problem. Sandboxing is a local OS feature. re: How will iOS sandboxing be enforced for apps delivered via third-party stores? For an app to be sandboxed it must be submitted to Apple and signed. Ergo: You would have to go through Apple anyway. > The same thing that happens when the apple and google app stores do that. Reputation loss, or more likely: Nothing. re: what happens if a store starts writing malware? There has been no cross-app malware on the iOS App Store. > Why does it have to be? re: How will that privilege be regulated to prevent abuse? If a third-party store and/or the apps served by it contain malware, but users aren't aware of it (e.g. cryptocurrency mining, data harvesting, and other silent exploitation of users' devices), it's good to have someone who is able to remotely shut those apps down. > It shouldn't be. re: Controversial content like porn may still ultimately be bound by Apple's ruling... ...are you seriously saying porn and "adult" apps (like prostitution services and even more questionable material) should be allowed on Apple devices? You're literally out to forcibly dismantle the entire value proposition of a company's products. Are you going to force Microsoft/Sony/Nintendo to do the same for their consoles? Why only Apple? Just because they're too successful? They became this successful because of these restrictions. People want a curated platform. > How so? Especially screen time restrictions is a non-issue for different stores. How is the rendering engine for a browser the restricting factor for content control? re: iOS Parental Control and Screen Time restrictions may be ineffective on other stores (and browsers too if third-party rendering engines were allowed). They have to go through the official APIs to adhere to system-wide content restrictions set by a user, which requires reviewing and signing by Apple, otherwise they could just skip the official APIs and ignore any parental control settings etc. > All other points are questions of convenience. You haven't given any solutions to any of the questions, other than: • Don't use it. • It's not a problem. The same answers apply to the status quo: • Don't use Apple devices. • A single App Store is not a problem for the majority of users: All other points are questions of convenience.