4 ms·

This article is a great encapsulation of why I think the whole Epic vs Apple and attempts to force Apple to allow alternative stores are a step in the wrong dir

by zepto 6y ago

This article is a great encapsulation of why I think the whole Epic vs Apple and attempts to force Apple to allow alternative stores are a step in the wrong direction. They will only make people more dependent on what will still be a controlled platform. What will also happen is that the government will end up regulating the App stores, since it’s no longer just Apple running them. This is one step short of the ‘ban on general purpose computing’ mentioned in the article, but a badly written law regulating software distribution could easily mean that it is that too. I wholeheartedly agree with the calls to action, but I’d add one more: stop going along with companies like Epic and all this clamor about Apple as if they are freedom fighters, and instead call for them to invest in a foundation to pay for community work on a genuinely open mobile Linux. There are numerous corporations with many billions available to invest, e.g. Microsoft, Epic, Facebook, all of whom claim to want to be free of Apple’s control. The way to do is is them to pay for a real open platform that none of them own. It seems counterintuitive, but that is the real way to commoditize their complement (as was successfully done on the server) and devalue Apple’s Proprietary OS, which would be to all of their advantage. There is no reason such a platform shouldn’t be an excellent vehicle for games, and with first class SPA support no App Store would be needed at all. If we really want to lobby for regulation, it should be to force boot camp level of openness for the hardware, so that anyone would be free to run an open software platform on a tablet, phone or laptop. That would help any open platform compete fairly with proprietary ones without needing to regulate OS designs.

enos_feedler 6y ago
Boot camp level access isn't going to provide the documentation necessary to program those machines. It also impedes the pace of vertically integrated innovation that has been happening over the years. If Apple needed a public contract for open operating systems to build on top of, it would either slow down the roadmap, or break the open software regularly. It isn't just a money problem, it's a technical and human coordination problem that can't be solved with money. IMO, Google should have stepped up to build this right, but didn't. They built Android to defend against Apple not to invent a better future path. If there is something to regulate it is making super easy for consumers to have choice over Apple vs. something else. Regulate the need for easy adoption paths between mobile ecosystems. This creates a fair arena for a free market to fight for consumers without lock in.
- zepto 6y ago
  > If Apple needed a public contract for open operating systems to build on top of, it would either slow down the roadmap, or break the open software regularly They managed it with Boot Camp itself, so it can be done. Also, forcing alternate app stores would be even more of an impedance in the vertical integration model. That said I don’t think the forced boot camp is a requirement. Agreed about Google. Google said ‘open always wins’, and then Android didn’t win because it’s not actually open. It already is super easy for consumers to have access to “something else” vs Apple. It’s just that the only viable “something else” is Android, which isn’t open. Consumers need an open alternative to choose before they can actually choose it. > It isn't just a money problem, it's a technical and human coordination problem that can't be solved with money. Building an open mobile Linux problem is both a human coordination problem and a money problem. Not much different from Ubuntu or Firefox, just with a different goal. You need a coordinated group of people and they need to be paid to work on it full time. That can definitely be solved with money, as long as there are people who want to build it.
  - enos_feedler 6y ago
    To start, it would be nice if consumers can choose between Android and iPhone and regulate that. Having the systems in place is a precursor to adding a third open alternative with a chance to be successful. I meant human coordination problem in the sense that Apple is already working at a lower bound of innovation delivery speed. They by definition have the least effort coordination with everyone working under perfectly aligned goals, under a single Delaware C Corp. Even with Android not being a fully open system, you are already moving away from the lower bound of coordination which is why Android maintains a 2-3 year roadmap gap with iOS. Money doesn't solve this, it takes _time_ to coordinate humans working for differently entities with their own goals/motives. This is coming from someone who worked on Android, at Google and met regularly with hardware vendors, OEMs, app developers, etc.
    - zepto 6y ago
      > consumers can choose between Android and iPhone They already can. > Android maintains a 2-3 year roadmap gap with iOS. Understood, however I don’t think this is actually a problem anymore. It’s ok if there is a lag between the open platform and whatever Apple is able to do at the cutting edge. This isn’t about eliminating Apple, or removing all incentive for them to produce high end products. It’s about creating a true open alternative. We’re at the stage where there is room for low end disruption. The alternative doesn’t have to be as good at everything as the latest iPhone. It only needs to be ‘good enough’ and it needs to be able to do some things that iPhones cannot do.
alickz 6y ago
>What will also happen is that the government will end up regulating the App stores, since it’s no longer just Apple running them. App stores have been on PC for decades at this point and the government isn't regulating them. I'm not sure this concern is founded.
- zepto 6y ago
  > App stores have been on PC for decades at this point and the government isn't regulating them. The government also hasn’t been regulating App stores on mobile until now and yet this is exactly what Epic and others are lobbying for. Forcing a company to allow App stores is a form of regulation in itself. In past decades, Apps were not a focus of government interest in the way they now are. Governments will inevitably take an increasing interest in how software distribution plays a part in fraud, disinformation, cybercrime, and espionage, which decades ago were nascent. The mobile industry has self-organized around restricted platforms curated stores as a solution to these problems. App stores are commercial platforms with liability for what they sell. We’re already seeing increasing political pressure on stores from government. The government can’t force the installation of new app stores without regulating what kind of App stores are allowed.
  - rpdillon 6y ago
    App stores are just apps, though. I think basic consumer protection laws similar to "right to repair" could be crafted along the lines of "right to sideload" that are designed to let folks install software of their choosing on devices they purchase. No need to regulate app stores specifically.

by zepto 6y ago

enos_feedler 6y ago

Boot camp level access isn't going to provide the documentation necessary to program those machines. It also impedes the pace of vertically integrated innovation that has been happening over the years. If Apple needed a public contract for open operating systems to build on top of, it would either slow down the roadmap, or break the open software regularly. It isn't just a money problem, it's a technical and human coordination problem that can't be solved with money. IMO, Google should have stepped up to build this right, but didn't. They built Android to defend against Apple not to invent a better future path. If there is something to regulate it is making super easy for consumers to have choice over Apple vs. something else. Regulate the need for easy adoption paths between mobile ecosystems. This creates a fair arena for a free market to fight for consumers without lock in.

zepto 6y ago
> If Apple needed a public contract for open operating systems to build on top of, it would either slow down the roadmap, or break the open software regularly They managed it with Boot Camp itself, so it can be done. Also, forcing alternate app stores would be even more of an impedance in the vertical integration model. That said I don’t think the forced boot camp is a requirement. Agreed about Google. Google said ‘open always wins’, and then Android didn’t win because it’s not actually open. It already is super easy for consumers to have access to “something else” vs Apple. It’s just that the only viable “something else” is Android, which isn’t open. Consumers need an open alternative to choose before they can actually choose it. > It isn't just a money problem, it's a technical and human coordination problem that can't be solved with money. Building an open mobile Linux problem is both a human coordination problem and a money problem. Not much different from Ubuntu or Firefox, just with a different goal. You need a coordinated group of people and they need to be paid to work on it full time. That can definitely be solved with money, as long as there are people who want to build it.
- enos_feedler 6y ago
  To start, it would be nice if consumers can choose between Android and iPhone and regulate that. Having the systems in place is a precursor to adding a third open alternative with a chance to be successful. I meant human coordination problem in the sense that Apple is already working at a lower bound of innovation delivery speed. They by definition have the least effort coordination with everyone working under perfectly aligned goals, under a single Delaware C Corp. Even with Android not being a fully open system, you are already moving away from the lower bound of coordination which is why Android maintains a 2-3 year roadmap gap with iOS. Money doesn't solve this, it takes _time_ to coordinate humans working for differently entities with their own goals/motives. This is coming from someone who worked on Android, at Google and met regularly with hardware vendors, OEMs, app developers, etc.
  - zepto 6y ago
    > consumers can choose between Android and iPhone They already can. > Android maintains a 2-3 year roadmap gap with iOS. Understood, however I don’t think this is actually a problem anymore. It’s ok if there is a lag between the open platform and whatever Apple is able to do at the cutting edge. This isn’t about eliminating Apple, or removing all incentive for them to produce high end products. It’s about creating a true open alternative. We’re at the stage where there is room for low end disruption. The alternative doesn’t have to be as good at everything as the latest iPhone. It only needs to be ‘good enough’ and it needs to be able to do some things that iPhones cannot do.

alickz 6y ago

>What will also happen is that the government will end up regulating the App stores, since it’s no longer just Apple running them. App stores have been on PC for decades at this point and the government isn't regulating them. I'm not sure this concern is founded.

zepto 6y ago
> App stores have been on PC for decades at this point and the government isn't regulating them. The government also hasn’t been regulating App stores on mobile until now and yet this is exactly what Epic and others are lobbying for. Forcing a company to allow App stores is a form of regulation in itself. In past decades, Apps were not a focus of government interest in the way they now are. Governments will inevitably take an increasing interest in how software distribution plays a part in fraud, disinformation, cybercrime, and espionage, which decades ago were nascent. The mobile industry has self-organized around restricted platforms curated stores as a solution to these problems. App stores are commercial platforms with liability for what they sell. We’re already seeing increasing political pressure on stores from government. The government can’t force the installation of new app stores without regulating what kind of App stores are allowed.
- rpdillon 6y ago
  App stores are just apps, though. I think basic consumer protection laws similar to "right to repair" could be crafted along the lines of "right to sideload" that are designed to let folks install software of their choosing on devices they purchase. No need to regulate app stores specifically.