8 ms·

If you must have a native mobile app, you can download it from alternative stores. Or Parlour can just distribute as a web app. Businesses don’t have any right

If you must have a native mobile app, you can download it from alternative stores. Or Parlour can just distribute as a web app. Businesses don’t have any right to force other businesses to carry their products.

PurpleFoxy 6y ago
This is a big point. I feel it’s acceptable for google to remove whatever they want because android allows you to install the apk directly. IMO apple should either be forced to allow side loading apps or to accept everything within reason to the App Store.
- jfk13 6y ago
  And who is the arbiter of "within reason"?
  - PurpleFoxy 6y ago
    For me it would just be “complies with the laws of the country” An acceptable compromise I think would be to have unlisted apps that can’t be found on the top charts or in search but can be installed via the App Store with a link.
- sirius87 6y ago
  And if installation of apks from unknown sources goes away because some nasty malware exploits it or other security excuse becomes available? Hard not to be alarmed by the pattern here.
  - Izkata 6y ago
    Samsung does (or at least did) lock down their Android phones like that. They had to be rooted to get third-party APKs installed.
    - d3nj4l 6y ago
      Do you have a source? I can’t find any myself. I (and others in my family) have owned several Samsung phones and have always been able to install APKs, so this would be news to me.
      - Izkata 6y ago
        Did, then. My first smartphone was a Galaxy S in 2010, which was locked down like that. Edit: Maybe it was AT&T, not Samsung, but if so that's a broader scope anyway - and my current AT&T Android phone isn't locked down.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- klodolph 6y ago
  You can already side load apps on iOS, you just need to go through some hoops (install Xcode, compile the app, create a developer account, futz about with certificates) but you don’t have to pay any money (you don’t have to pay the $99/year, that’s only necessary if you want to sell apps).
  - usrusr 6y ago
    Well, at least you have to purchase another device from them to run xcode on. Those 99$/a aren't the biggest hurdle of you aren't a Mac user. (even assuming a skillset that includes "futzing about with certificates")
  - saurik 6y ago
    Applications installed like this have limited functionality--such as no push notifications--and some types of application are simply not supported (such as VPN clients: Apple seems to have structured everything in order to best support the China Communist Party's control regime here). You can only have three such self-signed applications installed at once, and you have to keep reinstalling them every 7 days (which is more annoying than you would expect if you haven't really had to do it constantly).
SpaceRaccoon 6y ago
> Or Parlour can just distribute as a web app. Okay. Then hosting providers refuse to host. Payment processors refuse to process your payments for web services. Your domains are revoked. Your SSL certs are revoked. Where does this end? If they have the power to, and they've justified it this far, why wouldn't they keep going?
- FDSGSG 6y ago
  If nobody wants to do business with you, maybe you are the problem?
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
- adkadskhj 6y ago
  This is the natural possibility of closed systems we all subscribe to. Your ISP is only one government call away from disconnecting you. The answer is relying on corporate sponsored freedoms is not enough. Open source tools and communication technologies need to be available.
  - valuearb 6y ago
    Open source can’t solve the problem if government control exists.
    - adkadskhj 6y ago
      If government can control everything then why are we even discussing anything? Clearly this discussion is in the realm of citizens having _some_ free will. Rather, we're talking about whether or not the government should forcibly allow/deny corporations from supporting extremists. This has nothing to do with government control, imo.
- fireeyed 6y ago
  You just described the coordinated takedown of Alex Jones from Apple, Twitter, Facebook, Google, Cloudflare et al in less than 2 hours.
smaryjerry 6y ago
The fact that most of the largest headlines these days are all “Trump banned from X” shows you how important those websites are. If it these are “just apps” then it wouldn’t be headline news when someone gets banned. These are much more. They are monopolies in their own right but also they cooperate with eachother to simultaneous ban someone from all sites together. Now even if you allow the person they banned on their app on your app, or say you will such as Parler did, they will ban you from their payment processing system, their search, and basically everything they touch. It’s an attempt to blacklist someone from the internet and its only possible because they have monopoly like power. People will quickly catch on that “tech” is not one industry but many industries that no one player should dominate. There are only a few large players often control those industries and they collide with each other on things like moderation and bans.

PurpleFoxy 6y ago

This is a big point. I feel it’s acceptable for google to remove whatever they want because android allows you to install the apk directly. IMO apple should either be forced to allow side loading apps or to accept everything within reason to the App Store.

jfk13 6y ago
And who is the arbiter of "within reason"?
- PurpleFoxy 6y ago
  For me it would just be “complies with the laws of the country” An acceptable compromise I think would be to have unlisted apps that can’t be found on the top charts or in search but can be installed via the App Store with a link.
sirius87 6y ago
And if installation of apks from unknown sources goes away because some nasty malware exploits it or other security excuse becomes available? Hard not to be alarmed by the pattern here.
- Izkata 6y ago
  Samsung does (or at least did) lock down their Android phones like that. They had to be rooted to get third-party APKs installed.
  - d3nj4l 6y ago
    Do you have a source? I can’t find any myself. I (and others in my family) have owned several Samsung phones and have always been able to install APKs, so this would be news to me.
    - Izkata 6y ago
      Did, then. My first smartphone was a Galaxy S in 2010, which was locked down like that. Edit: Maybe it was AT&T, not Samsung, but if so that's a broader scope anyway - and my current AT&T Android phone isn't locked down.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
klodolph 6y ago
You can already side load apps on iOS, you just need to go through some hoops (install Xcode, compile the app, create a developer account, futz about with certificates) but you don’t have to pay any money (you don’t have to pay the $99/year, that’s only necessary if you want to sell apps).
- usrusr 6y ago
  Well, at least you have to purchase another device from them to run xcode on. Those 99$/a aren't the biggest hurdle of you aren't a Mac user. (even assuming a skillset that includes "futzing about with certificates")
- saurik 6y ago
  Applications installed like this have limited functionality--such as no push notifications--and some types of application are simply not supported (such as VPN clients: Apple seems to have structured everything in order to best support the China Communist Party's control regime here). You can only have three such self-signed applications installed at once, and you have to keep reinstalling them every 7 days (which is more annoying than you would expect if you haven't really had to do it constantly).

SpaceRaccoon 6y ago

> Or Parlour can just distribute as a web app. Okay. Then hosting providers refuse to host. Payment processors refuse to process your payments for web services. Your domains are revoked. Your SSL certs are revoked. Where does this end? If they have the power to, and they've justified it this far, why wouldn't they keep going?

FDSGSG 6y ago
If nobody wants to do business with you, maybe you are the problem?
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
adkadskhj 6y ago
This is the natural possibility of closed systems we all subscribe to. Your ISP is only one government call away from disconnecting you. The answer is relying on corporate sponsored freedoms is not enough. Open source tools and communication technologies need to be available.
- valuearb 6y ago
  Open source can’t solve the problem if government control exists.
  - adkadskhj 6y ago
    If government can control everything then why are we even discussing anything? Clearly this discussion is in the realm of citizens having _some_ free will. Rather, we're talking about whether or not the government should forcibly allow/deny corporations from supporting extremists. This has nothing to do with government control, imo.
fireeyed 6y ago
You just described the coordinated takedown of Alex Jones from Apple, Twitter, Facebook, Google, Cloudflare et al in less than 2 hours.

smaryjerry 6y ago

The fact that most of the largest headlines these days are all “Trump banned from X” shows you how important those websites are. If it these are “just apps” then it wouldn’t be headline news when someone gets banned. These are much more. They are monopolies in their own right but also they cooperate with eachother to simultaneous ban someone from all sites together. Now even if you allow the person they banned on their app on your app, or say you will such as Parler did, they will ban you from their payment processing system, their search, and basically everything they touch. It’s an attempt to blacklist someone from the internet and its only possible because they have monopoly like power. People will quickly catch on that “tech” is not one industry but many industries that no one player should dominate. There are only a few large players often control those industries and they collide with each other on things like moderation and bans.