13 ms·

It's depressing that even on hackernews where you expect people want to tinker and have control over their machines there's a probably a majority who are happy

It's depressing that even on hackernews where you expect people want to tinker and have control over their machines there's a probably a majority who are happy with the situation and use the think of my grandma (aka children) using iPhone situation. There could be numerous ways for Apple to let people run their own software or other stores without giving your grandma malware.

elefanten 6y ago
Except as soon as it becomes a remotely feasible action (with simple instructions) for the general consumer, a bunch of businesses will start requiring their users to disable "default Grandma mode". Imagine onboarding for Netflix including a pleasantly designed screen saying "Before you can use Netflix, you must Enable Third-party Stores. Go to Settings > Privacy..." If that comes to pass, there will be no highly-guarded, highly-moderated mobile OS to choose from. Apple has tremendous resources and expends tremendous resources, under pressure of tremendous incentives, to moderate it well. Do you think Third-party app stores will be moderated better or worse on average? Not just with respect to content decisions, but privacy, security and the works. There is a very reasonable case that having a solidly-guarded and moderated mobile OS as an option in the market is good for consumers. It may boggle the tech-savvy mind, but another way of reading the incredibly successful 10 year history of this horribly locked-down, oppressive OS is that the market has spoken. And it's happy.
- pkulak 6y ago
  I've noticed that if something is possible, your children or grandmother with do it, somehow. I hand out Chromebooks to relatives because of the low support requirements, and yet STILL every time I get one of those things back there are dozens of outright dangerous extensions installed. These are folks who know how to click on the icon for their email and that's it, and yet the garbage finds a way in. It's like trying to seal your basement against water in the everglades.
  - MKinley 6y ago
    I agree, and I believe this is in part because it is these kind of people that malware is targeted at. We, the tech savvy, will be smart enough to not do something because we pay attention at permissions or what extensions, programs, tools, etc are doing or want to do. The tech illiterate still do know how to use Google, search for what they want to do, click on the first thing that looks like it will do what they want, download and use it. If it doesn't do what they want, it remains there and they go and repeat these steps until they find exactly what program, etc does what they want, all while the bad ones remain installed, doing bad things. My wife fell into this category when we first met, after I began teaching her even just some basics and she learned to question things and be more careful, I haven't needed to "diagnose" her computer in a long time (I still do regular maintenance, but irregular issues never come up anymore). So I would say that education is the biggest key in this regard, teach them to start with a zero trust model.
    - bzzzt 6y ago
      Tech savvyness and paying attention will not save you when you're bombarded with dark patterns all the time. Even then, I prefer not to be one click away from losing my privacy, money or being bombarded with ads.
      - MKinley 6y ago
        If I am understanding you correctly, dark patterns are meant to be a psychological hit to you, it's not tech savvyness but clarity of mind and knowing that most every big business out there wants to make money off you and will do anything to get that money. This is a huge reason I am not on Facebook (among others, including the standard ones), and other social media platforms. I investigate claims myself, and do not trust what is thrown at me. Perhaps this is the biggest reason dark patterns have never worked on me. Also keeping a strong privacy/security setup that you don't compromise on helps too.
  - smichel17 6y ago
    It's totally possible to have both: on first init, have the user choose whether they want to prevent installing apps from 3rd party stores. Changing this setting requires performing a factory reset. Problem solved. If you want the walled garden, opt in at the beginning, and now your children/grandmother are safe as long as they don't literally reset their phone, wiping all their pictures/apps/whatever.
- JumpCrisscross 6y ago
  > as soon as it becomes a remotely feasible action (with simple instructions) for the general consumer, a bunch of businesses will start requiring their users to disable "default Grandma mode" Zero chance Facebook doesn't do this with Instagram. Zero chance large employers don't do this with their surveillance software.
  - snowwrestler 6y ago
    Facebook already got caught doing this. Apple revoked their enterprise cert and all their internal iOS tools stopped working. https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2019/01/facebook-and-google-offered-gift-cards-for-root-level-access-to-ios-users-data/ https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2019/01/facebook-and-google-...
- tveita 6y ago
  > Imagine onboarding for Netflix including a pleasantly designed screen saying "Before you can use Netflix, you must Enable Third-party Stores. Go to Settings > Privacy..." From Netflix' perspective that still adds considerable UX friction, and some percentage of potential customers will drop off. At what percentage cut is it better for them to just stay in the Apple store? 10%? 5%? 2%? At any of those rates Apple still makes boatloads of money.
- ahiknsr 6y ago
  >Except as soon as it becomes a remotely feasible action (with simple instructions) for the general consumer, a bunch of businesses will start requiring their users to disable "default Grandma mode". Android already allows side-loading and i don't think any popular app out there is asking users to enable side-loading to install their app. Why do you think the situation would be any different with iOS app store?
  - cmdli 6y ago
    To be fair, Fortnite did try to get their players to use sideloading to get around the 30% cut Google took. With Apple's more aggresive consumer protection stance, it wouldn't be surprising for more companies to take that step.
    - wernercd 6y ago
      > aggressive consumer protection stance Aggressive Protection? Sounds like the Mafia. Protection, paid for by you whether you want it or not. Pay the 30% or the mafia's going to break your kneecaps.
      - leadingthenet 6y ago
        Don’t be ridiculous, it’s not like Apple’s forcing anyone to publish software on the App Store. Or buy any of their hardware products, for that matter... People and organisations do it because it’s highly profitable, and it’s highly profitable because it’s a trusted and curated platform (unlike the competition). Pretending this is anything like the mafia is childish.
        josephg 6y ago
        The problem is a lack of detailed choice. I use a lot of Apple’s products because I think they’re generally decent, but it seems like right now I can only make one choice with my phone - Apple or Google. But buying an iPhone not an android phone doesn’t mean I want Apple to control my life. Some examples: I hate it how there’s no adult content allowed in the App Store. Or how if I build my own version of Signal, I have to disable push notifications and things because I haven’t paid apple enough money or something. I hate that last I checked, I can’t buy books in the audible app. If my camera breaks, I apparently can’t get it fixed by anyone except Apple. I hate how Apple charges my bank for the privilege of using the NFC chip in my phone, which I paid for. It’s ridiculous to demand that Epic games makes their own phone if they want to sell me their game. Ideologically, this is capitalism. But capitalism works best for everyone when there’s healthy competition. Wielding their superior phones to enforce a monopoly in other parts of the ecosystem is anticompetitive and anti consumer. And I’m glad someone is finally standing up to them.
- 908B64B197 6y ago
  I would trust Netflix. Other companies? Not so much. The App Store (and reduced API surface) was a true revolution for the customer. Remember every app installer requiring admin privilege on Windows and creating it's service that runs at startup checking for updates, littering the registry and sometimes installing drivers? All gone from the App Store. If the app maker doesn't like it he can go target another platform. Even on Android, the amount of useless software side loaded by the manufacturer is mind boggling.
  - herecomestracer 6y ago
    > I would trust Netflix. Other companies? Not so much. Missing the point. Sure, many users will trust the Netflix app, but we only need one trustworthy app (like Netflix) to open the gate for all other kinds of untrustworthy apps to also skip the check.
    - herbst 6y ago
      How so? Android is still asking every single time you install a non market app, spooky enough that nether my mum nor my gf consider clicking proceed without asking someone if they should.
      - vladvasiliu 6y ago
        Because it's a continuum. Say you trust Netflix "absolutely". So you go ahead and click through the "spooky warnings". This sets a precedent. Now you're in the situation "I've already done this, nothing happened. But of course, I shouldn't do it all the time. There's a reason the warning is there." Now you want to try out this other app. The company doesn't seem shady, but they're new, they don't yet have the reputation Netflix has. So you don't trust it "absolutely", but "pretty much". OK, you go ahead, just for this one app. Now you're even more used to clicking through the warning. Repeat a few times. Now you're installing totally_not_malware.apk. What could go wrong? You've already installed a bunch of apps this way with no issue. Plus this one app clearly isn't malware, it says so in the title! Also, all your friends are using it and you don't want to be left out.
- 2OEH8eoCRo0 6y ago
  >Imagine onboarding for Netflix including a pleasantly designed screen saying "Before you can use Netflix, you must Enable Third-party Stores. Go to Settings > Privacy..." Then we deal with that later?
  - leadingthenet 6y ago
    It’s already being dealt with. The current arrangement is the solution.
- nine_k 6y ago
  There should not be a single switch to bulk-enable all third-party stores. It should be per store, with a bunch of authentication info from the store, likely coming from its TLS certificate. It's the same situation as with "third-party" package stores in your favorite Linux distro. Say, on Ubuntu you add a particular PPA, you got to see its PGP signature, etc. So in the Netflix case, it will be a Netflix store, secured by a DNS + TLS lookup, and limited to what Netflix has to offer. But consider differently curated stores, some maybe even requiring a subscription fee to support the operation, discovering, checking, and maybe suggesting apps in different areas: from as wide as art apps or music creation apps, to as narrow as high-quality puzzle game apps. (Of course, an app might be available through more than one store.)
- malwrar 6y ago
  > the market has spoken. And it's happy. When has the market been given a choice? App Stores have been the only way to get software on iPhones since they were first released. I can't even install an alternative OS on my iPhone, and jailbreaking seems to have become less accessible now too. How do we know what experience is more competitive if competition isn't allowed to blossom? Maybe the market would value an alternative App Store that is able to compete on moderation and/or the 30% developer tax status quo? > If that comes to pass, there will be no highly-guarded, highly-moderated mobile OS to choose from. If the market wants this kind of experience, then surely it will continue to exist no?
  - WillPostForFood 6y ago
    When has the market been given a choice? The choice now is between Apple and Android ecosystems. The best Android phones have comparable hardware to the iPhone, so people are choosing based on software, price, and status.
    - komali2 6y ago
      Why not force Apple to behave ethically, on top of it? Give the people even more choice! Clearly there are strong arguments for the iphone if people are willing to give up software freedom to own one. As an Android user I'd love to hop over and find out what the buzz is about. But of course, I can't justify buying a computer that I can't even install software of my choice on. This is a great place for regulatory intervention to act for the good of the people. I don't really care about the good of Apple. It is the world's most highly valued company, right? It'll be fine.
      - llukas 6y ago
        Why do you want all ecosystems to conform to your beliefs and implement your vision of how choice need to be made? Librem 5 or Pinephone is a thing as well.
        komali2 6y ago
- summerlight 6y ago
  > a bunch of businesses will start requiring their users to disable "default Grandma mode". Imagine onboarding for Netflix including a pleasantly designed screen saying "Before you can use Netflix, you must Enable Third-party Stores. Go to Settings > Privacy..." In Android, Epic (and probably tens of ISP and carriers) actually tried that strategy and miserably failed.
  - Fogest 6y ago
    Exactly, Epic tried to get people to install their Fortnite app on Android via their apk from their website but they ended up just putting it on the appstore because not enough people were doing it. Likely because of the extra work and "scary" warnings Android gives you when you try and do this. So yeah this method does work to keep people using the more "safe" options while also letting others have more freedom with their device if they desire.
- userbinator 6y ago
  It may boggle the tech-savvy mind, but another way of reading the incredibly successful 10 year history of this horribly locked-down, oppressive OS is that the market has spoken. And it's happy. Don't forget that the market was pushed that way by Apple's highly influential marketing. People didn't really choose to give up their freedom of their own free will --- they were persuaded to, and only found out about the downsides afterwards.
  - gretch 6y ago
    Marketing isn't magic. You can't just take anything and sell it uphill. If you could, why would anyone try to innovate on any level? Why are software engineers and product people paid more than marketing people at the same company? Is Apple > Blackberry just because Apple had better marketing? Or Nokia? On the other hand, if you have something genuinely desirable, then yeah marketing help people find that thing.
    - hanselot 6y ago
      If marketing isn't magic, prey tell how something as user-hostile as the airpods exist.
  - pjanoman 6y ago
    Users are completely free to not use an Apple product. They have lost no freedom of their own will. Users choose this ecosystem over many other options.
    - Siira 6y ago
      People in North Korea have not lost their freedom. They can choose from the many options available to them, including going to South Korea. It’s been observed that most do not choose so.
- Silhouette 6y ago
  If that comes to pass, there will be no highly-guarded, highly-moderated mobile OS to choose from. But we're not talking about changing the operating system, are we? We're talking about opening up the marketplace. If you're relying on perfect/near-perfect moderation of every application in your marketplace to protect your users from abuse by developers, that already seems like asking the impossible. The operating system should have a robust security and privacy model that protects users, regardless of what software they run on it. But if you have that, the source of the software matters a lot less, and any argument based on restricting distribution to authorised channels will be weakened. Conflating these two fundamentally different issues might be convenient for Apple's PR or legal departments, but it's still obscuring how a customer's device is being restricted in ways not necessarily in that customer's favour.
- Osiris 6y ago
  This hasn't happened on Android where third party stores and side loading are available and have been since the beginning.
  - quenix 6y ago
    What? This has most definitely been happening on Android for almost a decade. That app ecosystem is a mess.
dmitriid 6y ago
> It's depressing that even on hackernews where you expect people want to tinker and have control over their machines there's a probably a majority who are happy with the situation I am happy with the situation for one simple reason: it just works. I hve to many things to deal with and tinker with elsewhere. I honestly don't want to tinker with my phone.
- orangecat 6y ago
  I honestly don't want to tinker with my phone. So don't? People seem to have the idea that in order to use Android effectively you have to rebuild the kernel every week. If you treat a Pixel like an iPhone, it works like an iPhone.
  - leadingthenet 6y ago
    No, it really doesn’t, except if looked through the most superficial lens.
    - lern_too_spel 6y ago
      Exactly. It works better.
      - leadingthenet 6y ago
        Great! Then use that ffs, and stop imposing your values on people who make different choices.
        echelon 6y ago
        Apple is imposing its will on thousands of American companies and robbing them. We put up with it because we have to, but we've had enough. This is painful.
        leadingthenet 6y ago
bstar77 6y ago
Umm, I tinker on the raspberry pi 4 my son and I share. We tinker on our gaming PCs. We also tinker on our retro electronics (game consoles, computers and receivers). I don’t have any urge to tinker with my phone, iPad or MacBook’s hardware- and that’s why I have them. We do build software via Xcode & Unity, which is an amazing experience, but I’m ok with the hardware being mostly static. This whole “modern computers should be hackable like DOS machines of the late 80s” is absurd. By that logic we should never have accepted systems on a chip. The only criticism is that I strongly think these devices should have replaceable batteries, even at the cost of thinness.
- echelon 6y ago
  You're not the only person in the world, though. But even more importantly, you shouldn't just think of Apple owners, but the entire economic landscape. The businesses that have to raise prices, the startups that have to fight for app store approval, the people wanting to get out immediate fixes, the experimenters wanting to push the platform further than they're allowed... Nevermind the "famers should own their equipment" argument that states that all general purpose computing devices should allow their owners to run whatever programs they want. The fact that Apple controls banking, dating, email, and a million other economic and social functions should be even more reason. That's an unhealthy amount of power. Apple shouldn't be able to force literally every company in America to dance to their beat to reach 50% of American consumers. Really think about it. Apple controls access to 50% of Americans. That's monopoly. Only the US Government is more successful in its taxing and regulation regime, and this is theoretically used for the betterment of all citizens rather than just shareholders. Apple subtracts from our whole industry to add to itself. They're acting like a republic of their own. They're downright impossible to avoid if you want to build a successful business. Give up your Apple fandom for a moment and think about this. Is this healthy? Would you still be happy with it if it were Windows Phone instead of iPhone? Would you still defend it?
  - llukas 6y ago
    > They shouldn't be able to force every company in America to dance to their beat to reach 50% of American consumers. This reason is exactly why I'm paying Apple premium.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
vbezhenar 6y ago
It's pretty simple. Apple users don't want to spell it, so I will. They want Apple to have a strong market position, so Apple can dictate their conditions to everyone else. They like the fact that Apple can bend every developer out there including Facebook and Google, because access to Apple users is a luxury. They like the fact that Apple uses its position to benefit Apple users. Of course Apple uses its position to benefit Apple itself as well, but users don't care as long as they got their personal benefits like improved privacy or security. If that comes at a price to other developers, price that those developers would not pay with more open approach, users still don't care. If Apple would allow installing of any applications to their phones, plenty of apps would run from Apple, because developers hate Apple. Installing some kind of OpenStore would be the first thing you're doing with your iPhone. AppStore would be empty just like Mac AppStore is empty. Very few developers would willingly pay 15% of their revenue to Apple just to have non-existent AppStore marketing (unless you're in lucky 0.001% who got top ranks). So those developers would not bend to Apple and Apple users would get reduced experience, less privacy, etc.
- echelon 6y ago
  In a way, the Apple fans don't matter. The DOJ can fix this single-handedly and force Apple to open up. We need to speak up now more than ever. The heat against Apple is turning up, and with all this pressure and focus we can frame our argument with crystal clarity and make it LOUD. Tim Sweeny, DHH, and plenty of other luminaries are carrying this argument forward. We need to join them in unison.
  - leadingthenet 6y ago
    Why, though? Why does everything need to become like Android? Why can’t Apple and its users do their own thing? What’s with this Borg mentality HN has when it comes to Apple? Assimilate or perish. I genuinely think it’s deep seated envy, frankly.
    - echelon 6y ago
      > Why does everything need to become like Android? It's not like Android. It's like computers before iPhone. > Why can’t Apple and its users do their own thing? Because if I want my startup to succeed, I have to have an iPhone app. Apple makes this hostile to everyone that isn't them. You need design approval to push updates, you can't deploy when you want. You have to pay the 30% tax and use Apple payment rails. You have to support Apple sign-in, which means you can never form a customer relationship. (It's fine for Apple to have that relationship, but not anyone else.) Taking advantage of the rise of the internet, Apple has used their incredible market position to elbow their way into every aspect of business. If you want to reach "their" customers, you have to play by the arbitrary rules they set. Rules that defend their market position and extract tax. > What’s with this Borg mentality HN has when it comes to Apple? What’s with this Borg mentality HN has when it comes to Apple fans? > Assimilate or perish. Assimilate or perish, the Apple fans tell other businesses and entrepreneurs. > I genuinely think it’s deep seated envy, frankly. It's anger that we're being abused by a gorilla-sized mobster and that nothing has been done to protect us. It's anger that the open computing and world wide web of the 90s and 2000s has been grifted and coopted by Google and Apple. That computing has been redefined as something proprietary. They've taken advantage of open source and open Internet, and leveraged that to capture and control the market. Software freedoms that enabled their rise are now dying because of these companies. They're making it harder for us to succeed and taking more of the pie for themselves. They got theirs, and now they're putting it under lock and key. Call it envy all you want. It's not fair for computing to be owned by the incumbents. Would you still have this opinion if history had been different and Microsoft's Windows Phone had taken the place of the iPhone? Would you be happy with the Windows Store, Microsoft's 30% fee, Microsoft's design guidelines, etc? Replace everything Apple you own with Microsoft, couple it with the same proprietary stance, and tell me you'd be happy. Take that thought process one step further and disregard the company altogether. It doesn't matter who is doing these things. Apple is immaterial. The behavior is bad and it shouldn't be allowed. This is why the DOJ hammered Microsoft -- rightly so -- and will do the same to Apple.
jojobas 6y ago
The defense I saw here was that Apple protects its value by offering a curated platform and that letting in the riff-raff would be detrimental for the users. Quite mind-boggling to be honest.
jonwinstanley 6y ago
You can run your own software already, just create an app in xcode and install it on your phone and possibly pay for a developer license I think :-( Being able to distribute it and have others use it is another matter.
crossroadsguy 6y ago
It's not that simple. While I really would prefer the ability to install anything on my iOS device, I don't really want to do that. Not any more. I like that TrueCaller on my iOS device works for most features without getting any permission from me, while on Android it refuses to buzz from the splash screen unless you give it every permission - including full contact access and phone. I like that on iOS a famous payment app from India (PhonePe) works flawlessly with zero permissions but on Android? It needs both location and contacts to even function - neither of these are mandatory for their functioning but still they do and can get away with that. You know WhatsApp doesn't let you use "Status" feature unless you provide Storage permission to it on Android (I doubt they need it just to shows those images, videos, and texts). I tried Pixel 4a for sometime. The experience was nauseating. Everything from every corner was trying to jump into my face and distract me with this option, that option, that feature, that dark pattern. I found the right swipe quite nifty that shows you news and your daily calendar etc. So I first tried to find a way to only find the news source or types of news I could see - nope, no go! Then I disabled "Discover" and then it was just an empty white screen! I could literally not use that space for anything else. There was a button in the corner that I could tap once, and then it would show me daily calendar events. After one click! I couldn't set it to use the space which "discover" used to take. And mind it discover was just rage news stories. And that calendar feature had a mind of its own - sometimes it would show the next 1 event, sometimes two I couldn't find a way to show day or week. I had the option to disable the entire right swipe feature. I didn't want that clock on my home screen - no way to do that. Could I install another Launcher for all this? Yes, I could even though I didn't want to, but they came with other problems and limitations. I couldn't configure the keyboards to be more simple and remove all the settings from it. Not to mention feature after feature getting disabled as I disable invasive permissions for features and apps. It feels depressing to literally stare into a phone and see live and read - "you are the product, deal with it!" And I was back to my iPhone with its pathetic battery life. So you see, Apple really has no competition and that's why they get away with things.
ironmagma 6y ago
It's less depressing if you think of it as that everything is tradeoffs. There is a cost to everything: a cost to vendor lock-in, and a cost to using a system not properly designed to fit your needs. People are making rational decisions, they are just choosing the path that fits their needs. Note however they are choosing among the available paths. There are always opportunities for new paths (OSes) to come along.
2muchcoffeeman 6y ago
Maybe it makes sense? HN readers on average probably have a better idea of what they are getting into. And probably make more money than average so they can buy multiple devices and try them out. I have iOS and Android devices. Nothing of worth is stuck on iOS (or MacOS). But iOS is my daily driver. Though I've switched back to Linux for daily work. I'm happy to mess around with something, but it's definitely great to have a platform that is not so easy to mess up and has great support for the rest of the family. And I'm happy to stay compatible with them.
danielscrubs 6y ago
Because Apple protects us somewhat from bad behavior. WeChat will not force use of your contacts on iOS but will on Android last I checked. It’s up to consumer choice people say, but the reality is, bad behavior, like NYT giving you a hard time to stop a subscription, is more profitable. Spamming your notifications with deals are more profitable. I really wish it wasn’t. And the worst thing is when it’s profitable they have the ad money to drown out all the marketing “the good guys” do.
_kbh_ 6y ago
There are numerous ways for anyone to run whatever software they feel like on a iPhone. One of those is literally a application store called AltStore. https://altstore.io https://altstore.io AltStore lets you run your own app store locally on your own network and push app's to your phone from it.

elefanten 6y ago

Except as soon as it becomes a remotely feasible action (with simple instructions) for the general consumer, a bunch of businesses will start requiring their users to disable "default Grandma mode". Imagine onboarding for Netflix including a pleasantly designed screen saying "Before you can use Netflix, you must Enable Third-party Stores. Go to Settings > Privacy..." If that comes to pass, there will be no highly-guarded, highly-moderated mobile OS to choose from. Apple has tremendous resources and expends tremendous resources, under pressure of tremendous incentives, to moderate it well. Do you think Third-party app stores will be moderated better or worse on average? Not just with respect to content decisions, but privacy, security and the works. There is a very reasonable case that having a solidly-guarded and moderated mobile OS as an option in the market is good for consumers. It may boggle the tech-savvy mind, but another way of reading the incredibly successful 10 year history of this horribly locked-down, oppressive OS is that the market has spoken. And it's happy.

pkulak 6y ago
I've noticed that if something is possible, your children or grandmother with do it, somehow. I hand out Chromebooks to relatives because of the low support requirements, and yet STILL every time I get one of those things back there are dozens of outright dangerous extensions installed. These are folks who know how to click on the icon for their email and that's it, and yet the garbage finds a way in. It's like trying to seal your basement against water in the everglades.
- MKinley 6y ago
  I agree, and I believe this is in part because it is these kind of people that malware is targeted at. We, the tech savvy, will be smart enough to not do something because we pay attention at permissions or what extensions, programs, tools, etc are doing or want to do. The tech illiterate still do know how to use Google, search for what they want to do, click on the first thing that looks like it will do what they want, download and use it. If it doesn't do what they want, it remains there and they go and repeat these steps until they find exactly what program, etc does what they want, all while the bad ones remain installed, doing bad things. My wife fell into this category when we first met, after I began teaching her even just some basics and she learned to question things and be more careful, I haven't needed to "diagnose" her computer in a long time (I still do regular maintenance, but irregular issues never come up anymore). So I would say that education is the biggest key in this regard, teach them to start with a zero trust model.
  - bzzzt 6y ago
    Tech savvyness and paying attention will not save you when you're bombarded with dark patterns all the time. Even then, I prefer not to be one click away from losing my privacy, money or being bombarded with ads.
    - MKinley 6y ago
      If I am understanding you correctly, dark patterns are meant to be a psychological hit to you, it's not tech savvyness but clarity of mind and knowing that most every big business out there wants to make money off you and will do anything to get that money. This is a huge reason I am not on Facebook (among others, including the standard ones), and other social media platforms. I investigate claims myself, and do not trust what is thrown at me. Perhaps this is the biggest reason dark patterns have never worked on me. Also keeping a strong privacy/security setup that you don't compromise on helps too.
- smichel17 6y ago
  It's totally possible to have both: on first init, have the user choose whether they want to prevent installing apps from 3rd party stores. Changing this setting requires performing a factory reset. Problem solved. If you want the walled garden, opt in at the beginning, and now your children/grandmother are safe as long as they don't literally reset their phone, wiping all their pictures/apps/whatever.
JumpCrisscross 6y ago
> as soon as it becomes a remotely feasible action (with simple instructions) for the general consumer, a bunch of businesses will start requiring their users to disable "default Grandma mode" Zero chance Facebook doesn't do this with Instagram. Zero chance large employers don't do this with their surveillance software.
- snowwrestler 6y ago
  Facebook already got caught doing this. Apple revoked their enterprise cert and all their internal iOS tools stopped working. https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2019/01/facebook-and-google-offered-gift-cards-for-root-level-access-to-ios-users-data/ https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2019/01/facebook-and-google-...
tveita 6y ago
> Imagine onboarding for Netflix including a pleasantly designed screen saying "Before you can use Netflix, you must Enable Third-party Stores. Go to Settings > Privacy..." From Netflix' perspective that still adds considerable UX friction, and some percentage of potential customers will drop off. At what percentage cut is it better for them to just stay in the Apple store? 10%? 5%? 2%? At any of those rates Apple still makes boatloads of money.
ahiknsr 6y ago
>Except as soon as it becomes a remotely feasible action (with simple instructions) for the general consumer, a bunch of businesses will start requiring their users to disable "default Grandma mode". Android already allows side-loading and i don't think any popular app out there is asking users to enable side-loading to install their app. Why do you think the situation would be any different with iOS app store?
- cmdli 6y ago
  To be fair, Fortnite did try to get their players to use sideloading to get around the 30% cut Google took. With Apple's more aggresive consumer protection stance, it wouldn't be surprising for more companies to take that step.
  - wernercd 6y ago
    > aggressive consumer protection stance Aggressive Protection? Sounds like the Mafia. Protection, paid for by you whether you want it or not. Pay the 30% or the mafia's going to break your kneecaps.
    - leadingthenet 6y ago
      Don’t be ridiculous, it’s not like Apple’s forcing anyone to publish software on the App Store. Or buy any of their hardware products, for that matter... People and organisations do it because it’s highly profitable, and it’s highly profitable because it’s a trusted and curated platform (unlike the competition). Pretending this is anything like the mafia is childish.
      - josephg 6y ago
        The problem is a lack of detailed choice. I use a lot of Apple’s products because I think they’re generally decent, but it seems like right now I can only make one choice with my phone - Apple or Google. But buying an iPhone not an android phone doesn’t mean I want Apple to control my life. Some examples: I hate it how there’s no adult content allowed in the App Store. Or how if I build my own version of Signal, I have to disable push notifications and things because I haven’t paid apple enough money or something. I hate that last I checked, I can’t buy books in the audible app. If my camera breaks, I apparently can’t get it fixed by anyone except Apple. I hate how Apple charges my bank for the privilege of using the NFC chip in my phone, which I paid for. It’s ridiculous to demand that Epic games makes their own phone if they want to sell me their game. Ideologically, this is capitalism. But capitalism works best for everyone when there’s healthy competition. Wielding their superior phones to enforce a monopoly in other parts of the ecosystem is anticompetitive and anti consumer. And I’m glad someone is finally standing up to them.
908B64B197 6y ago
I would trust Netflix. Other companies? Not so much. The App Store (and reduced API surface) was a true revolution for the customer. Remember every app installer requiring admin privilege on Windows and creating it's service that runs at startup checking for updates, littering the registry and sometimes installing drivers? All gone from the App Store. If the app maker doesn't like it he can go target another platform. Even on Android, the amount of useless software side loaded by the manufacturer is mind boggling.
- herecomestracer 6y ago
  > I would trust Netflix. Other companies? Not so much. Missing the point. Sure, many users will trust the Netflix app, but we only need one trustworthy app (like Netflix) to open the gate for all other kinds of untrustworthy apps to also skip the check.
  - herbst 6y ago
    How so? Android is still asking every single time you install a non market app, spooky enough that nether my mum nor my gf consider clicking proceed without asking someone if they should.
    - vladvasiliu 6y ago
      Because it's a continuum. Say you trust Netflix "absolutely". So you go ahead and click through the "spooky warnings". This sets a precedent. Now you're in the situation "I've already done this, nothing happened. But of course, I shouldn't do it all the time. There's a reason the warning is there." Now you want to try out this other app. The company doesn't seem shady, but they're new, they don't yet have the reputation Netflix has. So you don't trust it "absolutely", but "pretty much". OK, you go ahead, just for this one app. Now you're even more used to clicking through the warning. Repeat a few times. Now you're installing totally_not_malware.apk. What could go wrong? You've already installed a bunch of apps this way with no issue. Plus this one app clearly isn't malware, it says so in the title! Also, all your friends are using it and you don't want to be left out.
2OEH8eoCRo0 6y ago
>Imagine onboarding for Netflix including a pleasantly designed screen saying "Before you can use Netflix, you must Enable Third-party Stores. Go to Settings > Privacy..." Then we deal with that later?
- leadingthenet 6y ago
  It’s already being dealt with. The current arrangement is the solution.
nine_k 6y ago
There should not be a single switch to bulk-enable all third-party stores. It should be per store, with a bunch of authentication info from the store, likely coming from its TLS certificate. It's the same situation as with "third-party" package stores in your favorite Linux distro. Say, on Ubuntu you add a particular PPA, you got to see its PGP signature, etc. So in the Netflix case, it will be a Netflix store, secured by a DNS + TLS lookup, and limited to what Netflix has to offer. But consider differently curated stores, some maybe even requiring a subscription fee to support the operation, discovering, checking, and maybe suggesting apps in different areas: from as wide as art apps or music creation apps, to as narrow as high-quality puzzle game apps. (Of course, an app might be available through more than one store.)
malwrar 6y ago
> the market has spoken. And it's happy. When has the market been given a choice? App Stores have been the only way to get software on iPhones since they were first released. I can't even install an alternative OS on my iPhone, and jailbreaking seems to have become less accessible now too. How do we know what experience is more competitive if competition isn't allowed to blossom? Maybe the market would value an alternative App Store that is able to compete on moderation and/or the 30% developer tax status quo? > If that comes to pass, there will be no highly-guarded, highly-moderated mobile OS to choose from. If the market wants this kind of experience, then surely it will continue to exist no?
- WillPostForFood 6y ago
  When has the market been given a choice? The choice now is between Apple and Android ecosystems. The best Android phones have comparable hardware to the iPhone, so people are choosing based on software, price, and status.
  - komali2 6y ago
    Why not force Apple to behave ethically, on top of it? Give the people even more choice! Clearly there are strong arguments for the iphone if people are willing to give up software freedom to own one. As an Android user I'd love to hop over and find out what the buzz is about. But of course, I can't justify buying a computer that I can't even install software of my choice on. This is a great place for regulatory intervention to act for the good of the people. I don't really care about the good of Apple. It is the world's most highly valued company, right? It'll be fine.
    - llukas 6y ago
      Why do you want all ecosystems to conform to your beliefs and implement your vision of how choice need to be made? Librem 5 or Pinephone is a thing as well.
      - komali2 6y ago
summerlight 6y ago
> a bunch of businesses will start requiring their users to disable "default Grandma mode". Imagine onboarding for Netflix including a pleasantly designed screen saying "Before you can use Netflix, you must Enable Third-party Stores. Go to Settings > Privacy..." In Android, Epic (and probably tens of ISP and carriers) actually tried that strategy and miserably failed.
- Fogest 6y ago
  Exactly, Epic tried to get people to install their Fortnite app on Android via their apk from their website but they ended up just putting it on the appstore because not enough people were doing it. Likely because of the extra work and "scary" warnings Android gives you when you try and do this. So yeah this method does work to keep people using the more "safe" options while also letting others have more freedom with their device if they desire.
userbinator 6y ago
It may boggle the tech-savvy mind, but another way of reading the incredibly successful 10 year history of this horribly locked-down, oppressive OS is that the market has spoken. And it's happy. Don't forget that the market was pushed that way by Apple's highly influential marketing. People didn't really choose to give up their freedom of their own free will --- they were persuaded to, and only found out about the downsides afterwards.
- gretch 6y ago
  Marketing isn't magic. You can't just take anything and sell it uphill. If you could, why would anyone try to innovate on any level? Why are software engineers and product people paid more than marketing people at the same company? Is Apple > Blackberry just because Apple had better marketing? Or Nokia? On the other hand, if you have something genuinely desirable, then yeah marketing help people find that thing.
  - hanselot 6y ago
    If marketing isn't magic, prey tell how something as user-hostile as the airpods exist.
- pjanoman 6y ago
  Users are completely free to not use an Apple product. They have lost no freedom of their own will. Users choose this ecosystem over many other options.
  - Siira 6y ago
    People in North Korea have not lost their freedom. They can choose from the many options available to them, including going to South Korea. It’s been observed that most do not choose so.
Silhouette 6y ago
If that comes to pass, there will be no highly-guarded, highly-moderated mobile OS to choose from. But we're not talking about changing the operating system, are we? We're talking about opening up the marketplace. If you're relying on perfect/near-perfect moderation of every application in your marketplace to protect your users from abuse by developers, that already seems like asking the impossible. The operating system should have a robust security and privacy model that protects users, regardless of what software they run on it. But if you have that, the source of the software matters a lot less, and any argument based on restricting distribution to authorised channels will be weakened. Conflating these two fundamentally different issues might be convenient for Apple's PR or legal departments, but it's still obscuring how a customer's device is being restricted in ways not necessarily in that customer's favour.
Osiris 6y ago
This hasn't happened on Android where third party stores and side loading are available and have been since the beginning.
- quenix 6y ago
  What? This has most definitely been happening on Android for almost a decade. That app ecosystem is a mess.

dmitriid 6y ago

> It's depressing that even on hackernews where you expect people want to tinker and have control over their machines there's a probably a majority who are happy with the situation I am happy with the situation for one simple reason: it just works. I hve to many things to deal with and tinker with elsewhere. I honestly don't want to tinker with my phone.

orangecat 6y ago
I honestly don't want to tinker with my phone. So don't? People seem to have the idea that in order to use Android effectively you have to rebuild the kernel every week. If you treat a Pixel like an iPhone, it works like an iPhone.
- leadingthenet 6y ago
  No, it really doesn’t, except if looked through the most superficial lens.
  - lern_too_spel 6y ago
    Exactly. It works better.
    - leadingthenet 6y ago
      Great! Then use that ffs, and stop imposing your values on people who make different choices.
      - echelon 6y ago
        Apple is imposing its will on thousands of American companies and robbing them. We put up with it because we have to, but we've had enough. This is painful.
        leadingthenet 6y ago

bstar77 6y ago

Umm, I tinker on the raspberry pi 4 my son and I share. We tinker on our gaming PCs. We also tinker on our retro electronics (game consoles, computers and receivers). I don’t have any urge to tinker with my phone, iPad or MacBook’s hardware- and that’s why I have them. We do build software via Xcode & Unity, which is an amazing experience, but I’m ok with the hardware being mostly static. This whole “modern computers should be hackable like DOS machines of the late 80s” is absurd. By that logic we should never have accepted systems on a chip. The only criticism is that I strongly think these devices should have replaceable batteries, even at the cost of thinness.

echelon 6y ago
You're not the only person in the world, though. But even more importantly, you shouldn't just think of Apple owners, but the entire economic landscape. The businesses that have to raise prices, the startups that have to fight for app store approval, the people wanting to get out immediate fixes, the experimenters wanting to push the platform further than they're allowed... Nevermind the "famers should own their equipment" argument that states that all general purpose computing devices should allow their owners to run whatever programs they want. The fact that Apple controls banking, dating, email, and a million other economic and social functions should be even more reason. That's an unhealthy amount of power. Apple shouldn't be able to force literally every company in America to dance to their beat to reach 50% of American consumers. Really think about it. Apple controls access to 50% of Americans. That's monopoly. Only the US Government is more successful in its taxing and regulation regime, and this is theoretically used for the betterment of all citizens rather than just shareholders. Apple subtracts from our whole industry to add to itself. They're acting like a republic of their own. They're downright impossible to avoid if you want to build a successful business. Give up your Apple fandom for a moment and think about this. Is this healthy? Would you still be happy with it if it were Windows Phone instead of iPhone? Would you still defend it?
- llukas 6y ago
  > They shouldn't be able to force every company in America to dance to their beat to reach 50% of American consumers. This reason is exactly why I'm paying Apple premium.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

vbezhenar 6y ago

It's pretty simple. Apple users don't want to spell it, so I will. They want Apple to have a strong market position, so Apple can dictate their conditions to everyone else. They like the fact that Apple can bend every developer out there including Facebook and Google, because access to Apple users is a luxury. They like the fact that Apple uses its position to benefit Apple users. Of course Apple uses its position to benefit Apple itself as well, but users don't care as long as they got their personal benefits like improved privacy or security. If that comes at a price to other developers, price that those developers would not pay with more open approach, users still don't care. If Apple would allow installing of any applications to their phones, plenty of apps would run from Apple, because developers hate Apple. Installing some kind of OpenStore would be the first thing you're doing with your iPhone. AppStore would be empty just like Mac AppStore is empty. Very few developers would willingly pay 15% of their revenue to Apple just to have non-existent AppStore marketing (unless you're in lucky 0.001% who got top ranks). So those developers would not bend to Apple and Apple users would get reduced experience, less privacy, etc.

echelon 6y ago
In a way, the Apple fans don't matter. The DOJ can fix this single-handedly and force Apple to open up. We need to speak up now more than ever. The heat against Apple is turning up, and with all this pressure and focus we can frame our argument with crystal clarity and make it LOUD. Tim Sweeny, DHH, and plenty of other luminaries are carrying this argument forward. We need to join them in unison.
- leadingthenet 6y ago
  Why, though? Why does everything need to become like Android? Why can’t Apple and its users do their own thing? What’s with this Borg mentality HN has when it comes to Apple? Assimilate or perish. I genuinely think it’s deep seated envy, frankly.
  - echelon 6y ago
    > Why does everything need to become like Android? It's not like Android. It's like computers before iPhone. > Why can’t Apple and its users do their own thing? Because if I want my startup to succeed, I have to have an iPhone app. Apple makes this hostile to everyone that isn't them. You need design approval to push updates, you can't deploy when you want. You have to pay the 30% tax and use Apple payment rails. You have to support Apple sign-in, which means you can never form a customer relationship. (It's fine for Apple to have that relationship, but not anyone else.) Taking advantage of the rise of the internet, Apple has used their incredible market position to elbow their way into every aspect of business. If you want to reach "their" customers, you have to play by the arbitrary rules they set. Rules that defend their market position and extract tax. > What’s with this Borg mentality HN has when it comes to Apple? What’s with this Borg mentality HN has when it comes to Apple fans? > Assimilate or perish. Assimilate or perish, the Apple fans tell other businesses and entrepreneurs. > I genuinely think it’s deep seated envy, frankly. It's anger that we're being abused by a gorilla-sized mobster and that nothing has been done to protect us. It's anger that the open computing and world wide web of the 90s and 2000s has been grifted and coopted by Google and Apple. That computing has been redefined as something proprietary. They've taken advantage of open source and open Internet, and leveraged that to capture and control the market. Software freedoms that enabled their rise are now dying because of these companies. They're making it harder for us to succeed and taking more of the pie for themselves. They got theirs, and now they're putting it under lock and key. Call it envy all you want. It's not fair for computing to be owned by the incumbents. Would you still have this opinion if history had been different and Microsoft's Windows Phone had taken the place of the iPhone? Would you be happy with the Windows Store, Microsoft's 30% fee, Microsoft's design guidelines, etc? Replace everything Apple you own with Microsoft, couple it with the same proprietary stance, and tell me you'd be happy. Take that thought process one step further and disregard the company altogether. It doesn't matter who is doing these things. Apple is immaterial. The behavior is bad and it shouldn't be allowed. This is why the DOJ hammered Microsoft -- rightly so -- and will do the same to Apple.

jojobas 6y ago

The defense I saw here was that Apple protects its value by offering a curated platform and that letting in the riff-raff would be detrimental for the users. Quite mind-boggling to be honest.

jonwinstanley 6y ago

You can run your own software already, just create an app in xcode and install it on your phone and possibly pay for a developer license I think :-( Being able to distribute it and have others use it is another matter.

crossroadsguy 6y ago

It's not that simple. While I really would prefer the ability to install anything on my iOS device, I don't really want to do that. Not any more. I like that TrueCaller on my iOS device works for most features without getting any permission from me, while on Android it refuses to buzz from the splash screen unless you give it every permission - including full contact access and phone. I like that on iOS a famous payment app from India (PhonePe) works flawlessly with zero permissions but on Android? It needs both location and contacts to even function - neither of these are mandatory for their functioning but still they do and can get away with that. You know WhatsApp doesn't let you use "Status" feature unless you provide Storage permission to it on Android (I doubt they need it just to shows those images, videos, and texts). I tried Pixel 4a for sometime. The experience was nauseating. Everything from every corner was trying to jump into my face and distract me with this option, that option, that feature, that dark pattern. I found the right swipe quite nifty that shows you news and your daily calendar etc. So I first tried to find a way to only find the news source or types of news I could see - nope, no go! Then I disabled "Discover" and then it was just an empty white screen! I could literally not use that space for anything else. There was a button in the corner that I could tap once, and then it would show me daily calendar events. After one click! I couldn't set it to use the space which "discover" used to take. And mind it discover was just rage news stories. And that calendar feature had a mind of its own - sometimes it would show the next 1 event, sometimes two I couldn't find a way to show day or week. I had the option to disable the entire right swipe feature. I didn't want that clock on my home screen - no way to do that. Could I install another Launcher for all this? Yes, I could even though I didn't want to, but they came with other problems and limitations. I couldn't configure the keyboards to be more simple and remove all the settings from it. Not to mention feature after feature getting disabled as I disable invasive permissions for features and apps. It feels depressing to literally stare into a phone and see live and read - "you are the product, deal with it!" And I was back to my iPhone with its pathetic battery life. So you see, Apple really has no competition and that's why they get away with things.

ironmagma 6y ago

It's less depressing if you think of it as that everything is tradeoffs. There is a cost to everything: a cost to vendor lock-in, and a cost to using a system not properly designed to fit your needs. People are making rational decisions, they are just choosing the path that fits their needs. Note however they are choosing among the available paths. There are always opportunities for new paths (OSes) to come along.

2muchcoffeeman 6y ago

Maybe it makes sense? HN readers on average probably have a better idea of what they are getting into. And probably make more money than average so they can buy multiple devices and try them out. I have iOS and Android devices. Nothing of worth is stuck on iOS (or MacOS). But iOS is my daily driver. Though I've switched back to Linux for daily work. I'm happy to mess around with something, but it's definitely great to have a platform that is not so easy to mess up and has great support for the rest of the family. And I'm happy to stay compatible with them.

danielscrubs 6y ago

Because Apple protects us somewhat from bad behavior. WeChat will not force use of your contacts on iOS but will on Android last I checked. It’s up to consumer choice people say, but the reality is, bad behavior, like NYT giving you a hard time to stop a subscription, is more profitable. Spamming your notifications with deals are more profitable. I really wish it wasn’t. And the worst thing is when it’s profitable they have the ad money to drown out all the marketing “the good guys” do.

_kbh_ 6y ago

There are numerous ways for anyone to run whatever software they feel like on a iPhone. One of those is literally a application store called AltStore. https://altstore.io https://altstore.io AltStore lets you run your own app store locally on your own network and push app's to your phone from it.