6 ms·
The issue is it being a mandatory offering, as opposed to alternative stores. And it's designed to make a profit, not to secure iOS in any meaningful way. (For
by ocdtrekkie 6y ago
The issue is it being a mandatory offering, as opposed to alternative stores. And it's designed to make a profit, not to secure iOS in any meaningful way. (For instance, the requirement on IAPs, despite them not requiring additional software distribution services or app review costs for Apple.)
If Apple wants to secure or curate their platform, fine, but it's now a general computing device, and alternative platforms must be allowed, and most importantly, users must not be prevented from hearing about them.
Imagine the pressure Apple would feel from consumers if they were even still permitted to charge 30% and require companies to use their app store... but they also were required to let apps tell users to go to their website for a cheaper price.
Apple would need to drive it's prices down at least enough to make it worth eating their tax for a smoother experience. The fact Apple prevents consumers from being told about their cut or that things can be gotten cheaper elsewhere is the most insidious and obvious consumer harm in their entire schtick.
- endisneigh 6y agoI don’t understand why people say it’s a general computing device. It’s clearly not nor has it been advertised as such. If it actually was a general computing device you could just install an entirely different operating system onto it. If Apple allowed users to install Android on iPhones but didn’t change iOS would that be an acceptable solution? If so, what’s stopping someone from just getting an Android device now? If not- doesn’t Android already fix all of the issues you’re describing?
- m4rtink 6y agoThat's the whole issue - it is a general purpose computing device but Apple is trying to prevent users from using it as such for their selfish reasons. Not only is that anticompetitive, it's also dangerous (state actors can and do apply pressure on them to censor dissenting apps as Apple is the the single gatekeeper) and wasteful (you can't easily repurchase older unsupported devices due to the artificial limits inserted by Apple in what they can boot).
- endisneigh 6y agoBut it’s not though, that’s just your opinion - is anything with a PCB a general computing device? In any case I’d love if all things with any computing functionality be made completely open. Fridges, TVs, microwaves - etc
- saurik 6y agoWe classify a general purpose computing device from the perspective of what a user can do with it: if you can word process AND watch movies AND play games AND read books AND schedule appointments AND message people... well, that's not a "special purpose" device, it is "general purpose". Apple absolutely has made a general purpose computing device, and people buy it with that intent (the lawyer of the special district I am elected to the board of seems to literally have an iPad as his only computer).
- endisneigh 6y agoYes, it’s general with respect to the functionality available - that doesn’t mean you can do anything. Do you disagree? I don't understand how people can be shocked when Apple says their devices do A, B, C and D, but people complain and want government action so the devices do E.
- LegitShady 6y agoThe apple device does A, B, C, D, and E - but it requires you give apple a percentage of your revenue and not let you take money off app or they remove it. It's a general computing device as long as you pay apple's exploitative fees.
- breakfastduck 6y agoA device having the capacity in raw computing power to be a general purpose computing device does not make it one. Nor does you wanting it to beone. I'm growing really frustrated with the attempts to force Apple via law to turn my 0 maintenance iPhone into another computer I've got to bloody manage.
- saurik 6y agoMost Android devices--and certainly all the good ones--are almost as locked down as iOS: Android has a bit more extensibility points, and sideloading has fewer restrictions, but it isn't like an Android device is some open "run anything you want" playing field (hell: the original Android G1 needed a jailbreak!!); and, really, if you analyze that market carefully, Samsung pretty much owns it with like 95% of the profit made across all vendors (and they have extra locked down devices).
- perryizgr8 6y agoThat's why Google and Samsung need to be sued in a similar fashion, too.
- saurik 6y agoAgree. FWIW, in Epic's battle, they also chose to sue Google; we just don't hear as much about the case.
- josephcsible 6y agoDo you think Pixels are locked down, or do you not consider them "good ones"?
- vorpalhex 6y agoThe only thing between you and infinite control on most Android devices, including pixels, is repeatedly tapping the About entry in the menu.
- saurik 6y agoHuh?... developer mode on an Android device doesn't even give you root access (which isn't that powerful these days due to SELinux), much less "infinite control": if you want to modify the lock screen or how notifications work or any other myriad things that Android doesn't provide extensibility points for, you need to jailbreak your device, just as you would for iOS. Some devices provide the ability to do an official "bootloader unlock", which actually gives you real control, but the vast majority do not. (aside) The lack of basic understanding of how all of these restrictions work is so annoyingly pervasive that I have seriously been in arguments with people at conferences who are adamant about how open these Android devices are, and then when I challenge them what device they have they have a jailbroken Samsung on Verizon (the worst combo) and I have to walk them down memory lane to remind them of what exploit they must have downloaded (as I used to know most of the key players; I've taken a step back from the DEFCON scene, though, as the toxicity was getting to me).
- Apocryphon 6y agoApple plainly does so. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pI-iJcC9JUc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pI-iJcC9JUc