4 ms·

> Apple impacts businesses, consumers, engineers - multiple industries - with their bad behavior Unfortunately the alternative is letting businesses and engine

by ratww 6y ago

> Apple impacts businesses, consumers, engineers - multiple industries - with their bad behavior Unfortunately the alternative is letting businesses and engineers impact the life of their own customers negatively. Developers had way too much power to screw up users for years, and they did: spying and tracking behind our backs. Mandatory rootkits [1]. Piracy Protection and DRM that did way more than advertised and caused nuisance for paying customers. Rootkits on music albums. Apple has fixed or is trying to fix most of those. If government wants to step up to regulate developers, small or big, maybe it's fine. But until then then Apple has provided the best solution to toxic developers. Sure you can say "you can't just not install the app from the toxic developer", but then why isn't it ok to use the "you can just not buy an iPhone" argument? [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25030660 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25030660

zepto 6y ago
I agree with you except that I believe that there is a third alternative. All the safety issues that are solved by Apple’s approach could be solved by some combination of open source and or open source development, in an open way that does away with the single gatekeeper. That would be better than either Apple or the Government controlling software distribution.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
echelon 6y ago
This is such a red herring! It's just as easy to firewall your platform and prevent trackers. Open installation and privacy are not mutually exclusive. The browser is a firewalled platform. Look at what Mozilla can do for privacy on their shoestring budget. Apple likes it the way they have it. You cannot tell me the DOJ can't force them to open their platform and suddenly every Apple user is stuck on 90's era Windows. This is not how it works.
- ratww 6y ago
  A firewall partially "fixes" part of the spying/tracking, but doesn't solve any of the other issues I pointed, especially concerning forced installation of software that screws up with my machine. Also, the fact I use a firewall doesn't excuse developers from being assholes and spying/tracking me behind my back. It's my computer, it's a developer's sacred right to have any kind of code that acts against my interests. Please read the linked reply. It was a real issue, not an hypothetical. Installing software required by my bank REALLY screwed up my computer in the past, and I didn't really have a choice.
  - echelon 6y ago
    To copy the argument used by Apple supporters, you can choose another bank. > It's my computer, it's a developer's sacred right to have any kind of code that acts against my interests. Apple has created an exclusionary economic zone and put 50% of Americans in it. This is unprecedented. > Also, the fact I use a firewall doesn't excuse developers from being assholes and spying/tracking me behind my back. A sandbox will protect you from everything you claim to be worried about.
    - ratww 6y ago
      > To copy the argument used by Apple supporters, you can choose another bank. Not really. I needed to be a customer of the specific bank to receive my salary. Luckily, this changed many year ago after government intervention, though. Now you're allowed to have an account in a bank other than the one chosen by your company. The problem is that every other bank still has the same requirement. And my father still needs to be a customer of a specific bank to use government-backed credit for small companies that was best for him. There was nothing in the contract about Diebold controlling every single bit coming in or out of his computer. > Apple has created an exclusionary economic zone and put 50% of Americans in it. This is unprecedented. It's still not a sacred right of developers to fuck with my computer or threaten my ability to conduct business. My computer is my property, not yours or any other developers. Having asshole developers out of this zone is great for me. I'm not saying what we have is perfect. I want more freedom, but only for myself and for other users. What I don't want is this freedom to be abused by third-parties, so that I and other users are the mercy of asshole developers, which seem to be the majority in 2020. Freedom is difficult when it comes to closed source software. > A sandbox will protect you from everything you claim to be worried about. Still doesn't excuse it, nor completely fixes it. And I tried everything and couldn't find anything that works with Warsaw by Diebold, other than buying Apple stuff. If you have suggestions I'm all ears.
SZJX 6y ago
A lot of the anti-Apple arguments I see here seem to have an element of ideological fixation. IMO the practicalities of the real world are always more involved than an ideological black/white distinction, and just as you said here there are always tradeoffs on different fronts. Openness instead of a walled garden is nice, but how far can you go with it? If you think about it, every company is essentially a plutocratic organization or even somehow military-like, where most important decisions are made by the few elites at the top and passed down, and people are quite fine with it. Of course the argument here seems to be that Apple is gradually becoming an almost "public good", while if you're unhappy with a company you're working at, you can switch. But then again if there are better alternatives to Apple, nothing theoretically prevents the users from switching. I have been using Android since forever but this year I'm switching to iPhone. The touted "freedom" simply is not evident in most scenarios during my daily phone usage, and I'm fed up with a lot of downsides of Android (ironically, it's hard to think that being tracked by countless potentially malicious apps offers you more "freedom" than living in Apple's ecosystem), also Google is not known to be exactly friendly to developers either and it can be even more Kafka-esque to appeal a ban, apparently. To maintain the standards of a system, sometimes the maintainer has to get hard, and this would result in them occasionally cracking down on false positives. Still, it's similar to how a society cannot function without an actual enforcer of rules, which is the police. As long as there is a mechanism/will to redress the false positives, it's much better than a system where there's no control at all. Of course, if you say you're a hardcore libertarian and are fine with living in a society without any policing and would rather protect your own interests yourself, no problem and you can always go with the most liberal phone OS out there. But most societies can't realistically function that way nor do most people wish it that way. The app ecosystem is similar in this sense.
- kaba0 6y ago
  There is a misunderstanding of market will choose the best competitor. A competition in of itself is not fair, it needs heavy regulation to become fair - like a running contest could be won by anyone if they were to shoot the other contenders. And this is what happens in unregulated markets - we’ve got an oligopoly, with a really high bar to enter - basically impossible for a newcomer (note that even Microsoft failed to enter it). So there should absolutely be some government regulation to make it fair - and it is not overreach. It is simply no longer Apple’s decision, since it is practically a public service in part, as you noted.
kaba0 6y ago
The AppStore has every right to publish only apps they deem rightfull - so there would be absolutely no change there. Yet, apple should not be able to disallow me from using my device in any way I want to - that is I should be able to sideload anything, make it an alternative app store or a simple app. They are even free to hide that option from regular users so the security of them won’t be harmed - they can’t install malware with 2 clicks because there will be 4 apple prompts explaining why it’s a bad idea. But I get to install a prog language interpreter or a proper browser - so win-win (other than apple’s profits, but I couldn’t care less)
- ratww 6y ago
  > Yet, apple should not be able to disallow me from using my device in any way I want to And my point is that random application developers should not disallow me from using my device in any way I want to, nor they should be allowed to make my device work against my interests. So far, as a user, for the last 25 years, Apple has not disallowed me as much as random developers have, and in fact Apple has fought that fight on my behalf. What Apple is doing by limiting developers powers is 100% in my interest since I don't care about developers that are hostile to me. I 100% agree that I should be able to run what I want, but the other side of the story matters too. Maybe there's a technical solution? Maybe if everything was open source? Maybe better sandbox/firewalls?
  - kaba0 6y ago
    I don’t see how allowing sideloading wouldn’t be a solution for both sides.
    - zepto 6y ago
      It doesn’t explain why if sideloading is what people want, they don’t just buy Android. People keep trying to say this is about them being denied choice, and yet the choice they say they want is widely available.
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]

by ratww 6y ago

zepto 6y ago

I agree with you except that I believe that there is a third alternative. All the safety issues that are solved by Apple’s approach could be solved by some combination of open source and or open source development, in an open way that does away with the single gatekeeper. That would be better than either Apple or the Government controlling software distribution.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

echelon 6y ago

This is such a red herring! It's just as easy to firewall your platform and prevent trackers. Open installation and privacy are not mutually exclusive. The browser is a firewalled platform. Look at what Mozilla can do for privacy on their shoestring budget. Apple likes it the way they have it. You cannot tell me the DOJ can't force them to open their platform and suddenly every Apple user is stuck on 90's era Windows. This is not how it works.

ratww 6y ago
A firewall partially "fixes" part of the spying/tracking, but doesn't solve any of the other issues I pointed, especially concerning forced installation of software that screws up with my machine. Also, the fact I use a firewall doesn't excuse developers from being assholes and spying/tracking me behind my back. It's my computer, it's a developer's sacred right to have any kind of code that acts against my interests. Please read the linked reply. It was a real issue, not an hypothetical. Installing software required by my bank REALLY screwed up my computer in the past, and I didn't really have a choice.
- echelon 6y ago
  To copy the argument used by Apple supporters, you can choose another bank. > It's my computer, it's a developer's sacred right to have any kind of code that acts against my interests. Apple has created an exclusionary economic zone and put 50% of Americans in it. This is unprecedented. > Also, the fact I use a firewall doesn't excuse developers from being assholes and spying/tracking me behind my back. A sandbox will protect you from everything you claim to be worried about.
  - ratww 6y ago
    > To copy the argument used by Apple supporters, you can choose another bank. Not really. I needed to be a customer of the specific bank to receive my salary. Luckily, this changed many year ago after government intervention, though. Now you're allowed to have an account in a bank other than the one chosen by your company. The problem is that every other bank still has the same requirement. And my father still needs to be a customer of a specific bank to use government-backed credit for small companies that was best for him. There was nothing in the contract about Diebold controlling every single bit coming in or out of his computer. > Apple has created an exclusionary economic zone and put 50% of Americans in it. This is unprecedented. It's still not a sacred right of developers to fuck with my computer or threaten my ability to conduct business. My computer is my property, not yours or any other developers. Having asshole developers out of this zone is great for me. I'm not saying what we have is perfect. I want more freedom, but only for myself and for other users. What I don't want is this freedom to be abused by third-parties, so that I and other users are the mercy of asshole developers, which seem to be the majority in 2020. Freedom is difficult when it comes to closed source software. > A sandbox will protect you from everything you claim to be worried about. Still doesn't excuse it, nor completely fixes it. And I tried everything and couldn't find anything that works with Warsaw by Diebold, other than buying Apple stuff. If you have suggestions I'm all ears.

SZJX 6y ago

A lot of the anti-Apple arguments I see here seem to have an element of ideological fixation. IMO the practicalities of the real world are always more involved than an ideological black/white distinction, and just as you said here there are always tradeoffs on different fronts. Openness instead of a walled garden is nice, but how far can you go with it? If you think about it, every company is essentially a plutocratic organization or even somehow military-like, where most important decisions are made by the few elites at the top and passed down, and people are quite fine with it. Of course the argument here seems to be that Apple is gradually becoming an almost "public good", while if you're unhappy with a company you're working at, you can switch. But then again if there are better alternatives to Apple, nothing theoretically prevents the users from switching. I have been using Android since forever but this year I'm switching to iPhone. The touted "freedom" simply is not evident in most scenarios during my daily phone usage, and I'm fed up with a lot of downsides of Android (ironically, it's hard to think that being tracked by countless potentially malicious apps offers you more "freedom" than living in Apple's ecosystem), also Google is not known to be exactly friendly to developers either and it can be even more Kafka-esque to appeal a ban, apparently. To maintain the standards of a system, sometimes the maintainer has to get hard, and this would result in them occasionally cracking down on false positives. Still, it's similar to how a society cannot function without an actual enforcer of rules, which is the police. As long as there is a mechanism/will to redress the false positives, it's much better than a system where there's no control at all. Of course, if you say you're a hardcore libertarian and are fine with living in a society without any policing and would rather protect your own interests yourself, no problem and you can always go with the most liberal phone OS out there. But most societies can't realistically function that way nor do most people wish it that way. The app ecosystem is similar in this sense.

kaba0 6y ago
There is a misunderstanding of market will choose the best competitor. A competition in of itself is not fair, it needs heavy regulation to become fair - like a running contest could be won by anyone if they were to shoot the other contenders. And this is what happens in unregulated markets - we’ve got an oligopoly, with a really high bar to enter - basically impossible for a newcomer (note that even Microsoft failed to enter it). So there should absolutely be some government regulation to make it fair - and it is not overreach. It is simply no longer Apple’s decision, since it is practically a public service in part, as you noted.

kaba0 6y ago

The AppStore has every right to publish only apps they deem rightfull - so there would be absolutely no change there. Yet, apple should not be able to disallow me from using my device in any way I want to - that is I should be able to sideload anything, make it an alternative app store or a simple app. They are even free to hide that option from regular users so the security of them won’t be harmed - they can’t install malware with 2 clicks because there will be 4 apple prompts explaining why it’s a bad idea. But I get to install a prog language interpreter or a proper browser - so win-win (other than apple’s profits, but I couldn’t care less)

ratww 6y ago
> Yet, apple should not be able to disallow me from using my device in any way I want to And my point is that random application developers should not disallow me from using my device in any way I want to, nor they should be allowed to make my device work against my interests. So far, as a user, for the last 25 years, Apple has not disallowed me as much as random developers have, and in fact Apple has fought that fight on my behalf. What Apple is doing by limiting developers powers is 100% in my interest since I don't care about developers that are hostile to me. I 100% agree that I should be able to run what I want, but the other side of the story matters too. Maybe there's a technical solution? Maybe if everything was open source? Maybe better sandbox/firewalls?
- kaba0 6y ago
  I don’t see how allowing sideloading wouldn’t be a solution for both sides.
  - zepto 6y ago
    It doesn’t explain why if sideloading is what people want, they don’t just buy Android. People keep trying to say this is about them being denied choice, and yet the choice they say they want is widely available.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]