5 ms·

Apple's advertising is built on security and privacy — allowing other App Stores on their system would only open up users to invasive tracking & attacks. I want

Apple's advertising is built on security and privacy — allowing other App Stores on their system would only open up users to invasive tracking & attacks. I want my desktop system to be open as can be; I'm perfectly happy with my phone being (somewhat) locked down. That said, Apple could allow users to choose to install other App Stores on their devices, but at the cost of their devices being considered hopelessly compromised and no longer eligible for support from Apple. Let the market decide: a wider variety of games/apps, or a (fairly) secure system with attached privacy promises.

xlii 6y ago
Isn't this what's the Jailbreak is about? You can jailbreak device, Apple still will have to respect the guarantee but they don't have to support you whatsoever. Sure, Apple patch it, but then those are true vulnerabilities that are used to jailbreak it. Maybe they should just have a switch somewhere that would go "enable unsupported mode" that'd show a lot of angry texts at you before allowing you to do that. That'd solve most of the coalition claims probably. Epic can always put their software on Cydia...
freedomben 6y ago
> Apple's advertising is built on security and privacy — allowing other App Stores on their system would only open up users to invasive tracking & attacks. But why? If sideloading requires explicit user action and acknowledgment of danger, why would this affect their brand of safety and privacy in any way? The users who want a safe controlled environment can easily choose to stay in that environment. I just do not understand this argument.
- edmundsauto 6y ago
  Because these users, regardless of what they previously clicked, will expect Apple to support it. And end to end support is kind of one of the big deals about the iPhone.
  - shagie 6y ago
    (supporting this point) You can see this sort of thing in an old post by Joel on https://www.joelonsoftware.com/2004/06/13/how-microsoft-lost-the-api-war/ https://www.joelonsoftware.com/2004/06/13/how-microsoft-lost... This references an even older blog post (that has been lost to time) which was quoted: > Look at the scenario from the customer’s standpoint. You bought programs X, Y and Z. You then upgraded to Windows XP. Your computer now crashes randomly, and program Z doesn’t work at all. You’re going to tell your friends, “Don’t upgrade to Windows XP. It crashes randomly, and it’s not compatible with program Z.” Are you going to debug your system to determine that program X is causing the crashes, and that program Z doesn’t work because it is using undocumented window messages? Of course not. You’re going to return the Windows XP box for a refund. (You bought programs X, Y, and Z some months ago. The 30-day return policy no longer applies to them. The only thing you can return is Windows XP.) This is the same sort of thing that Apple faces with iOS. If an application breaks when the system is upgraded, it is the system's fault - not the application (at least in the minds of many consumers) and it is also considered to be the responsibility of the operating system vendor to fix the problem. (This is part of why the Catalina upgrade was such a big deal because it was known that they'd break a lot of things in doing that) If someone gets an app from a hypothetical 3rd party vendor store, and it breaks on an update of the operating system (or allows you to download an app that doesn't run) - its seen as company that wrote the OS's fault even though there is nothing that the company that wrote the OS can do about it - they can't even refund the app.
    - freedomben 6y ago
      I appreciate the dialog. I'm still struggling with it though and I'm wondering if we have different premises. This seems like it assumes that users are complete buffoons, and aren't capable of understanding a simple message like, "if you enable this feature, you open yourself up to possible security holes. Apple also makes no guarantees that software installed in this way will work, either now or in the future." At a minimum it seems like the system is designed around the lowest common denominator of user at the expense of more power users.
      - 6y ago
edmundsauto 6y ago
Except Apple is obsessed with taking responsibility for the entire user experience. Also, as people experience the subpar user experience w other app stores, they will still bring it to Apple for support. And probably blame apple - “it’s their logo on the cover”. Consumer behavior is not intelligent.
- samsquire 6y ago
  Yes, it is intelligent. In aggregate the market is intelligent.
  - edmundsauto 6y ago
    How do you define the heuristic to tell? I can't do it without resorting to a tautology or circular logic.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

xlii 6y ago

Isn't this what's the Jailbreak is about? You can jailbreak device, Apple still will have to respect the guarantee but they don't have to support you whatsoever. Sure, Apple patch it, but then those are true vulnerabilities that are used to jailbreak it. Maybe they should just have a switch somewhere that would go "enable unsupported mode" that'd show a lot of angry texts at you before allowing you to do that. That'd solve most of the coalition claims probably. Epic can always put their software on Cydia...

freedomben 6y ago

> Apple's advertising is built on security and privacy — allowing other App Stores on their system would only open up users to invasive tracking & attacks. But why? If sideloading requires explicit user action and acknowledgment of danger, why would this affect their brand of safety and privacy in any way? The users who want a safe controlled environment can easily choose to stay in that environment. I just do not understand this argument.

edmundsauto 6y ago
Because these users, regardless of what they previously clicked, will expect Apple to support it. And end to end support is kind of one of the big deals about the iPhone.
- shagie 6y ago
  (supporting this point) You can see this sort of thing in an old post by Joel on https://www.joelonsoftware.com/2004/06/13/how-microsoft-lost-the-api-war/ https://www.joelonsoftware.com/2004/06/13/how-microsoft-lost... This references an even older blog post (that has been lost to time) which was quoted: > Look at the scenario from the customer’s standpoint. You bought programs X, Y and Z. You then upgraded to Windows XP. Your computer now crashes randomly, and program Z doesn’t work at all. You’re going to tell your friends, “Don’t upgrade to Windows XP. It crashes randomly, and it’s not compatible with program Z.” Are you going to debug your system to determine that program X is causing the crashes, and that program Z doesn’t work because it is using undocumented window messages? Of course not. You’re going to return the Windows XP box for a refund. (You bought programs X, Y, and Z some months ago. The 30-day return policy no longer applies to them. The only thing you can return is Windows XP.) This is the same sort of thing that Apple faces with iOS. If an application breaks when the system is upgraded, it is the system's fault - not the application (at least in the minds of many consumers) and it is also considered to be the responsibility of the operating system vendor to fix the problem. (This is part of why the Catalina upgrade was such a big deal because it was known that they'd break a lot of things in doing that) If someone gets an app from a hypothetical 3rd party vendor store, and it breaks on an update of the operating system (or allows you to download an app that doesn't run) - its seen as company that wrote the OS's fault even though there is nothing that the company that wrote the OS can do about it - they can't even refund the app.
  - freedomben 6y ago
    I appreciate the dialog. I'm still struggling with it though and I'm wondering if we have different premises. This seems like it assumes that users are complete buffoons, and aren't capable of understanding a simple message like, "if you enable this feature, you open yourself up to possible security holes. Apple also makes no guarantees that software installed in this way will work, either now or in the future." At a minimum it seems like the system is designed around the lowest common denominator of user at the expense of more power users.
    - 6y ago

edmundsauto 6y ago

Except Apple is obsessed with taking responsibility for the entire user experience. Also, as people experience the subpar user experience w other app stores, they will still bring it to Apple for support. And probably blame apple - “it’s their logo on the cover”. Consumer behavior is not intelligent.

samsquire 6y ago
Yes, it is intelligent. In aggregate the market is intelligent.
- edmundsauto 6y ago
  How do you define the heuristic to tell? I can't do it without resorting to a tautology or circular logic.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]