3 ms·

A simple solution to the problem - force Google/Apple to implement API's to allow the loading/code signing verification of applications on their respective plat

A simple solution to the problem - force Google/Apple to implement API's to allow the loading/code signing verification of applications on their respective platforms. On the PC we have GOG/Steam/EA/Windows Store etc ... why can't mobile device be the same ???.

hayst4ck 6y ago
Lets say we have an app ecosystem where you can OK third party apps, and one where that's not possible. Let's say people voted with their dollars that the one where it's not possible is a better ecosystem. Should the one with the closed ecosystem be forced open, especially if the company says that the ecosystem being closed is one of the primary factors in their success and why people prefer it? Apple dictated to companies that they will implement privacy labels. If the ecosystem was open, they could not do that. The big companies could make people jump through hoops to avoid it or put a lot of support into a competitive app platform if iphones were an open platform. I am very in favor of privacy labels, and I think it is a direct result of the closed ecosystem and apples opinionated stance. I think it is a key competitive advantage for apple that the app store remain closed so it can dictate to companies that privacy labels are now a requirement, or HTTPS is a requirement, or anything else. When people say force apple to allow third party app stores, I hear "why do we need Dropbox when there is rsync?" Just because you know that an app is violating your privacy doesn't mean parents do, they can't meaningfully compare and contrast app stores. I hear people not understanding that an app store is a commons in the tragedy of the commons sense, and all commons need a regulator to not turn to garbage.
- tomjen3 6y ago
  The two systems are not otherwise identical, so I don't see that "you could buy an Android" as a reasonable alternative (I own one). I also don't see the issue in that you can install apps from another store, since it is fairly easy to put up a warning "Apple has not approved any of the apps you can buy from this store".
  - david-cako 6y ago
    So customers that want a more secure system should have no option? Isn't it a fair assumption, based on how consumers see Apple, that all software running on an Apple device is approved by Apple? The App Store always had that concept built in. On your Mac you can still run anything you want outside of the App Store, but there's always going to be security instrumentation and app review that costs real time and money. Apple is your antivirus company when you buy Apple products, and the way they position the products means that they hold themselves accountable for privacy and security issues in a way that other vendors don't. I think the fees are too high, but I wouldn't want app review and verification to go away. If they could make it free for any independent developer, great, but that doesn't seem to be the case yet.
    - tomjen3 6y ago
      Sure, their option is not to install another appstore in the first place.
      - colejohnson66 6y ago
        And your option is to not buy an Apple device. See how consumer choice goes both ways?

hayst4ck 6y ago

Lets say we have an app ecosystem where you can OK third party apps, and one where that's not possible. Let's say people voted with their dollars that the one where it's not possible is a better ecosystem. Should the one with the closed ecosystem be forced open, especially if the company says that the ecosystem being closed is one of the primary factors in their success and why people prefer it? Apple dictated to companies that they will implement privacy labels. If the ecosystem was open, they could not do that. The big companies could make people jump through hoops to avoid it or put a lot of support into a competitive app platform if iphones were an open platform. I am very in favor of privacy labels, and I think it is a direct result of the closed ecosystem and apples opinionated stance. I think it is a key competitive advantage for apple that the app store remain closed so it can dictate to companies that privacy labels are now a requirement, or HTTPS is a requirement, or anything else. When people say force apple to allow third party app stores, I hear "why do we need Dropbox when there is rsync?" Just because you know that an app is violating your privacy doesn't mean parents do, they can't meaningfully compare and contrast app stores. I hear people not understanding that an app store is a commons in the tragedy of the commons sense, and all commons need a regulator to not turn to garbage.

tomjen3 6y ago
The two systems are not otherwise identical, so I don't see that "you could buy an Android" as a reasonable alternative (I own one). I also don't see the issue in that you can install apps from another store, since it is fairly easy to put up a warning "Apple has not approved any of the apps you can buy from this store".
- david-cako 6y ago
  So customers that want a more secure system should have no option? Isn't it a fair assumption, based on how consumers see Apple, that all software running on an Apple device is approved by Apple? The App Store always had that concept built in. On your Mac you can still run anything you want outside of the App Store, but there's always going to be security instrumentation and app review that costs real time and money. Apple is your antivirus company when you buy Apple products, and the way they position the products means that they hold themselves accountable for privacy and security issues in a way that other vendors don't. I think the fees are too high, but I wouldn't want app review and verification to go away. If they could make it free for any independent developer, great, but that doesn't seem to be the case yet.
  - tomjen3 6y ago
    Sure, their option is not to install another appstore in the first place.
    - colejohnson66 6y ago
      And your option is to not buy an Apple device. See how consumer choice goes both ways?