4 ms·

So continue to use the Apple store and you have no problems. App not on the Apple store? Don't use the app. So simple. --- I bet your first response to tha

So continue to use the Apple store and you have no problems. App not on the Apple store? Don't use the app. So simple. --- I bet your first response to that statement isn't positive - Now reflect that this is exactly what Apple is saying to developers. "Don't want to use our store? Don't release on iOS." Because right now, if you use an application on iOS, you are not a customer of that application. You are an Apple customer who happens to use a product resold by Apple. Now - I have no problem with you preferring that arrangement, and I'm certainly not suggesting removing the Apple app store. I'm just saying it feels a tad like bullshit. Maybe entirely like bullshit. Actually - Nope, it's just bullshit.

thehappypm 6y ago
My gut reaction to "app not on Apple store" is -- that's life, isn't it? Not every program is available on every store. I can't get Halo on my PlayStation. I can't get certain video editing tools on my PC. I can't get certain productivity software on my Mac. Disjointed app stores are annoying at worst, but I don't really see why there's any legal problem with that.
- horsawlarway 6y ago
  Legally, we're clearly still in a grey area for this. Ethically... I find it fairly immoral to intentionally prohibit users who have bought your product from using it in ways you don't like. Courts also tend to look poorly on this, but there's a narrow path to walk between enforcing interoperability and allowing innovation. I guess I'd say the concepts "sale" and "ownership" are at stake here. If I buy something, I expect to be able to extend/modify/repair/dismantle that device in any way I choose. I OWN it. In the physical world, it's nearly impossible to put some sort of non-electronic lock on a device that would prevent the user from doing just that. There's no reasonable way to make a cup that could only hold Sprite. So that status quo up until the last 70 years or so has been "buy means buy" and you own the thing. Now we have products with incredibly complicated digital locks, though. It turns out you can prevent users from putting something other than sprite in their cups with a complicated enough digital enforcement mechanism. The question is "should you be allowed to?". And that's actually a hard question - The answer depends a lot on how many people need to interoperate with you and your products (your marketshare and possible monopoly status), as well as whether you have a genuine benefit you're providing your consumer by limiting that cup to just Sprite. So legally speaking, Keurig just settled a case about this exact issue (they're out 31 million, btw). This is not nearly as "problem free" as you so clearly want it to be.
  - thehappypm 6y ago
    I do think there’s a bit of absurdity to this, though. I have a smart fridge. Is LG unethical for not letting me run Android apps on the little LCD? I have a right to that, don’t I? The answer seems to become, I own the fridge, I can change it how I want, it I can figure out how, I can put whatever software I want on it. Same with an iPhone—it’s my device, I can use it as a paperweight if I want, if I want, I can run Doom directly on it if I can figure out how. Not sure why LG or Apple have an obligation to make sure their devices can run arbitrary programs.
    - fakedang 6y ago
      I think the question here is whether the arbitrary restrictions dissuade you from performing the primary function of the device. For the fridge, not having android apps does not stop your using it as a fridge, which was what it was made for. For the iPhone, not letting apps run without going through the Appstore is a direct hindrance to the function of a smartphone, which is to run apps.
Spivak 6y ago
The value of iOS devices being entirely Apple controlled is precisely because it enables Apple to bully developers into behaving. Alternative stores aren’t about user choice; software is in most cases non-fungible. If I need OneNote there is one company that sells it and I must go to a store where it’s offered. Today if Microsoft doesn’t want to follow Apple’s rules they can pound sand and lose out on the whole iOS market. Tomorrow they will just go to another store and user has gained zero choice. Like it sucks that it takes a trillion dollar company and total control of the platform to get developers to sorta kinda not mistreat their users but the “the individual right to not use bad apps” has done exactly nothing.

thehappypm 6y ago

My gut reaction to "app not on Apple store" is -- that's life, isn't it? Not every program is available on every store. I can't get Halo on my PlayStation. I can't get certain video editing tools on my PC. I can't get certain productivity software on my Mac. Disjointed app stores are annoying at worst, but I don't really see why there's any legal problem with that.

horsawlarway 6y ago
Legally, we're clearly still in a grey area for this. Ethically... I find it fairly immoral to intentionally prohibit users who have bought your product from using it in ways you don't like. Courts also tend to look poorly on this, but there's a narrow path to walk between enforcing interoperability and allowing innovation. I guess I'd say the concepts "sale" and "ownership" are at stake here. If I buy something, I expect to be able to extend/modify/repair/dismantle that device in any way I choose. I OWN it. In the physical world, it's nearly impossible to put some sort of non-electronic lock on a device that would prevent the user from doing just that. There's no reasonable way to make a cup that could only hold Sprite. So that status quo up until the last 70 years or so has been "buy means buy" and you own the thing. Now we have products with incredibly complicated digital locks, though. It turns out you can prevent users from putting something other than sprite in their cups with a complicated enough digital enforcement mechanism. The question is "should you be allowed to?". And that's actually a hard question - The answer depends a lot on how many people need to interoperate with you and your products (your marketshare and possible monopoly status), as well as whether you have a genuine benefit you're providing your consumer by limiting that cup to just Sprite. So legally speaking, Keurig just settled a case about this exact issue (they're out 31 million, btw). This is not nearly as "problem free" as you so clearly want it to be.
- thehappypm 6y ago
  I do think there’s a bit of absurdity to this, though. I have a smart fridge. Is LG unethical for not letting me run Android apps on the little LCD? I have a right to that, don’t I? The answer seems to become, I own the fridge, I can change it how I want, it I can figure out how, I can put whatever software I want on it. Same with an iPhone—it’s my device, I can use it as a paperweight if I want, if I want, I can run Doom directly on it if I can figure out how. Not sure why LG or Apple have an obligation to make sure their devices can run arbitrary programs.
  - fakedang 6y ago
    I think the question here is whether the arbitrary restrictions dissuade you from performing the primary function of the device. For the fridge, not having android apps does not stop your using it as a fridge, which was what it was made for. For the iPhone, not letting apps run without going through the Appstore is a direct hindrance to the function of a smartphone, which is to run apps.

Spivak 6y ago

The value of iOS devices being entirely Apple controlled is precisely because it enables Apple to bully developers into behaving. Alternative stores aren’t about user choice; software is in most cases non-fungible. If I need OneNote there is one company that sells it and I must go to a store where it’s offered. Today if Microsoft doesn’t want to follow Apple’s rules they can pound sand and lose out on the whole iOS market. Tomorrow they will just go to another store and user has gained zero choice. Like it sucks that it takes a trillion dollar company and total control of the platform to get developers to sorta kinda not mistreat their users but the “the individual right to not use bad apps” has done exactly nothing.