8 ms·

Maybe they have a point, I think it does actually eliminate Apple's choice to have authoritarian control over what software you run on devices you alldgedly own

by antifa 5y ago

Maybe they have a point, I think it does actually eliminate Apple's choice to have authoritarian control over what software you run on devices you alldgedly own.

simonh 5y ago
The thing is as a user I want Apple to vet the software I use. I’m hiring them to do that for me. I don’t want Facebook, Google, Amazon, etc to be able to do an end run around App Store controls. If they moved to a ‘freedom store’ I’d probably have to use it and I’d lose the oversight Apple gives me. Note to ‘freedom’ activists. Don’t tell me what I want. Leave iOS the way I want it. If you want a system that works they way Android does, use Android and leave me alone.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- RealStickman_ 5y ago
  Facebook does not have its own store on android and amazon's is pretty small and comes preinstalled with very few devices only. Why would that be different with apple?
  - simonh 5y ago
    Because on Android, Google doesn’t give a crap about privacy and Facebook knows it, so they’re quite happy to stay on the Play Store. The same goes for a ton of other apps, they’d all swing over up a ‘Freedom Store’ on iOS. They don’t need up do that on Android because Google.
  - 9wzYQbTYsAIc 5y ago
    To quote the parent commenter: > I don’t want Facebook, Google, Amazon, etc to be able to do an end run around App Store controls. Alternative stores is a subset of this core issue: sideloading apps to circumvent the gatekeeping process that Apple created for the users benefit.
  - odshoifsdhfs 5y ago
    Well, Facebook and Google goals align (gather as much user data as possible) so that is probably the reason. FB literally took print ads to try to fight the tracking disclosure tags Apple wants them to use, so yeah, I can see FB probably having their own app store on day 1 the moment iOS allows it
- passivate 5y ago
  Then, for you, keep using Apple's store. For the rest of us, we'd like to shop at other stores too.
  - simonh 5y ago
    That doesn’t work because Facebook, Google, Amazon, etc would move to side loading or a freedom store. To use those apps I’d have to go outside the App Store. More stores might be more choice for you, but it would take away the benefits to me of apps having to go through Apple App Store review to get on my phone. Finally, the thing is users don’t always want all these choices. Really. That’s why the Play Store dominates on Android. Consolidation and simplicity benefits users. I know that creates monopoly issues and Apple should be held accountable, but the concerns of users like me need to be addressed. A Freedom Store with loose controls on iOS, but with Google apps, Facebook, Spotify, Fortnite, probably all the MS apps as well, all as exclusives would coerce users into using two different stores and cripple privacy accountability for iOS users like me.
    - passivate 5y ago
      >More stores might be more choice for you, but it would take away the benefits to me of apps having to go through Apple App Store review to get on my phone. Fair enough, can you give us a few of those benefits so we can have a discussion? AFAIK, Apple's privacy controls are built into the OS, so you'd still have those.
      - 9wzYQbTYsAIc 5y ago
        The article goes into detail about this from a security perspective. From a user experience perspective, Apple’s ethos is that of a consistent, clean look and feel for everything in the ecosystem. Additionally, from the user experience perspective, Apple’s ethos is for custom development to maintain adherence to the stated user experience goals of Apple’s own in-house development.
        brazzledazzle 5y ago
- danShumway 5y ago
  > I don’t want Facebook, Google, Amazon, etc to be able to do an end run around App Store controls. If they moved to a ‘freedom store’ I’d probably have to use it and I’d lose the oversight Apple gives me. This is the central conflict here, because only one of two things can be true. Either: A) iOS is so big that companies can't afford not to target it, and that they're forced to follow Apple's rules, even if they don't like those rules. or B) the smartphone market is open, and companies can just decide not to target iOS, in which case there really isn't a way to force Facebook to give you a privacy-respecting app. If B is true, then having 3rd-party app stores on the iPhone would change almost nothing. If A is true, then it would change everything. ---- Often, the pro/anti-Apple arguments boil down to one side saying, "just develop for Android if you don't want Apple's restrictions", and the other side saying, "just don't install a 3rd-party app store if you don't want one." But both of those responses miss the point. The point is that Apple users want a monopoly. They want to be part of a restricted platform that is so big that Facebook and Google and Microsoft can't afford not to develop for it. Meanwhile, people like me want Apple's walled garden to be small enough that it can be ignored. In that debate, it doesn't matter where you draw the lines around Apple's walled garden. "No one is forcing you to use iOS" and "no one is forcing you to install an app store" are basically the exact same argument; the only difference is whether they define Apple's walled garden as encompassing the hardware or the software. But the reason why Facebook can't abandon iOS is the same reason why Apple can be considered anti-competitive. It doesn't matter whether Apple's walled-garden is a device or a store, the question is whether or not companies are forced to enter it in order to remain competitive on the market. On some level, we all know this -- that's why on the anti-Apple side we recognize that "just go to Android" isn't really a good argument. But that's also why the pro-Apple side doesn't accept "just use the official app store" as a solution to their problems. Because what they want is the complete opposite of what software-freedom advocates want. They want developers to be forced to target the walled garden. That's the conflict. I have a locked down Linux box that only pulls software from a few sources. The difference between my Linux box and an iPhone is not the security, or the privacy, or anything like that -- the difference between my Linux box and an iPhone is that companies like Facebook do not feel obligated to write software for my Linux box. ---- And honestly, I don't know that there's a way around that conflict. Either you economically force Facebook to target iOS's walled garden, or you don't. The best middle ground I can think of is something like the Web, an aggressively sandboxed runtime that companies are economically forced to target the same way that they are forced to target iOS, but that is not controlled by a single corporation and that approaches security in a more equitable way. But even on the web, this conflict still exists a little bit. The web being an Open platform means that outside of the platform-level restrictions, I still can't force companies to build their websites/service exactly the way I want them to. At best I can use the Web platform itself to circumvent their services, block ads, etc... > If you want a system that works they way Android does, use Android and leave me alone. So what all of this boils down to is: I strongly suspect that if Android development was as economically viable as iOS development, and if it was genuinely possible for large companies to just stop supporting iOS and to "leave iOS users alone", that iOS users would be very unhappy with that outcome. You don't really want to be left alone, you want Facebook, Google, etc to be forced to build apps for you inside of your walled garden.
- mthoms 5y ago
  I think the no sideloading thing is reasonable, but I have a sincere question - Are you willing to compromise on anything else in the equation so that the "other side" gets something? How about significantly lower App Store fees? What do you think about allowing PWA's and alternative browser engines? What about game streaming? If your "opposition" is willing to admit that your position is understandable, would you be willing to do the same?
  - sbuk 5y ago
    I was thinking about this today - they should drop the commission to 10% across the board and change the policy on IAP. For in app media subscriptions, 0%, but stick with Apple Pay only for IAP. For app/game features exluding streaming media, 10%. IAP for game 'content' such a lucky dip boxes (the crap that Epic wants to sell) 100%, because selling this shit should be totally outlawed. Edit: Allow a mechanism for chargeable updates.
- orangecat 5y ago
  I don’t want Facebook, Google, Amazon, etc to be able to do an end run around App Store controls. Should Apple block the websites of those companies and only allow you to use the apps that they've approved? Don’t tell me what I want. Leave iOS the way I want it. If you want a system that works they way Android does, use Android and leave me alone. You're welcome to hand control of your computing environment to a megacorporation. I'm going to continue to point out that that's a very bad idea for freedom and innovation.
- paulddraper 5y ago
  > I don’t want Facebook, Google, Amazon, etc to be able to do an end run around App Store controls As evidenced by the fact that on sideload-enabled Android, Facebook, Google, Amazon, etc. have done an end run around Play Store controls. /s
9wzYQbTYsAIc 5y ago
It also eliminates the user’s choice to have a device within a walled garden. It’d be like government restricting the right of OpenBSD to remove sudo.

by antifa 5y ago

Maybe they have a point, I think it does actually eliminate Apple's choice to have authoritarian control over what software you run on devices you alldgedly own.

simonh 5y ago

The thing is as a user I want Apple to vet the software I use. I’m hiring them to do that for me. I don’t want Facebook, Google, Amazon, etc to be able to do an end run around App Store controls. If they moved to a ‘freedom store’ I’d probably have to use it and I’d lose the oversight Apple gives me. Note to ‘freedom’ activists. Don’t tell me what I want. Leave iOS the way I want it. If you want a system that works they way Android does, use Android and leave me alone.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
RealStickman_ 5y ago
Facebook does not have its own store on android and amazon's is pretty small and comes preinstalled with very few devices only. Why would that be different with apple?
- simonh 5y ago
  Because on Android, Google doesn’t give a crap about privacy and Facebook knows it, so they’re quite happy to stay on the Play Store. The same goes for a ton of other apps, they’d all swing over up a ‘Freedom Store’ on iOS. They don’t need up do that on Android because Google.
- 9wzYQbTYsAIc 5y ago
  To quote the parent commenter: > I don’t want Facebook, Google, Amazon, etc to be able to do an end run around App Store controls. Alternative stores is a subset of this core issue: sideloading apps to circumvent the gatekeeping process that Apple created for the users benefit.
- odshoifsdhfs 5y ago
  Well, Facebook and Google goals align (gather as much user data as possible) so that is probably the reason. FB literally took print ads to try to fight the tracking disclosure tags Apple wants them to use, so yeah, I can see FB probably having their own app store on day 1 the moment iOS allows it
passivate 5y ago
Then, for you, keep using Apple's store. For the rest of us, we'd like to shop at other stores too.
- simonh 5y ago
  That doesn’t work because Facebook, Google, Amazon, etc would move to side loading or a freedom store. To use those apps I’d have to go outside the App Store. More stores might be more choice for you, but it would take away the benefits to me of apps having to go through Apple App Store review to get on my phone. Finally, the thing is users don’t always want all these choices. Really. That’s why the Play Store dominates on Android. Consolidation and simplicity benefits users. I know that creates monopoly issues and Apple should be held accountable, but the concerns of users like me need to be addressed. A Freedom Store with loose controls on iOS, but with Google apps, Facebook, Spotify, Fortnite, probably all the MS apps as well, all as exclusives would coerce users into using two different stores and cripple privacy accountability for iOS users like me.
  - passivate 5y ago
    >More stores might be more choice for you, but it would take away the benefits to me of apps having to go through Apple App Store review to get on my phone. Fair enough, can you give us a few of those benefits so we can have a discussion? AFAIK, Apple's privacy controls are built into the OS, so you'd still have those.
    - 9wzYQbTYsAIc 5y ago
      The article goes into detail about this from a security perspective. From a user experience perspective, Apple’s ethos is that of a consistent, clean look and feel for everything in the ecosystem. Additionally, from the user experience perspective, Apple’s ethos is for custom development to maintain adherence to the stated user experience goals of Apple’s own in-house development.
      - brazzledazzle 5y ago
danShumway 5y ago
> I don’t want Facebook, Google, Amazon, etc to be able to do an end run around App Store controls. If they moved to a ‘freedom store’ I’d probably have to use it and I’d lose the oversight Apple gives me. This is the central conflict here, because only one of two things can be true. Either: A) iOS is so big that companies can't afford not to target it, and that they're forced to follow Apple's rules, even if they don't like those rules. or B) the smartphone market is open, and companies can just decide not to target iOS, in which case there really isn't a way to force Facebook to give you a privacy-respecting app. If B is true, then having 3rd-party app stores on the iPhone would change almost nothing. If A is true, then it would change everything. ---- Often, the pro/anti-Apple arguments boil down to one side saying, "just develop for Android if you don't want Apple's restrictions", and the other side saying, "just don't install a 3rd-party app store if you don't want one." But both of those responses miss the point. The point is that Apple users want a monopoly. They want to be part of a restricted platform that is so big that Facebook and Google and Microsoft can't afford not to develop for it. Meanwhile, people like me want Apple's walled garden to be small enough that it can be ignored. In that debate, it doesn't matter where you draw the lines around Apple's walled garden. "No one is forcing you to use iOS" and "no one is forcing you to install an app store" are basically the exact same argument; the only difference is whether they define Apple's walled garden as encompassing the hardware or the software. But the reason why Facebook can't abandon iOS is the same reason why Apple can be considered anti-competitive. It doesn't matter whether Apple's walled-garden is a device or a store, the question is whether or not companies are forced to enter it in order to remain competitive on the market. On some level, we all know this -- that's why on the anti-Apple side we recognize that "just go to Android" isn't really a good argument. But that's also why the pro-Apple side doesn't accept "just use the official app store" as a solution to their problems. Because what they want is the complete opposite of what software-freedom advocates want. They want developers to be forced to target the walled garden. That's the conflict. I have a locked down Linux box that only pulls software from a few sources. The difference between my Linux box and an iPhone is not the security, or the privacy, or anything like that -- the difference between my Linux box and an iPhone is that companies like Facebook do not feel obligated to write software for my Linux box. ---- And honestly, I don't know that there's a way around that conflict. Either you economically force Facebook to target iOS's walled garden, or you don't. The best middle ground I can think of is something like the Web, an aggressively sandboxed runtime that companies are economically forced to target the same way that they are forced to target iOS, but that is not controlled by a single corporation and that approaches security in a more equitable way. But even on the web, this conflict still exists a little bit. The web being an Open platform means that outside of the platform-level restrictions, I still can't force companies to build their websites/service exactly the way I want them to. At best I can use the Web platform itself to circumvent their services, block ads, etc... > If you want a system that works they way Android does, use Android and leave me alone. So what all of this boils down to is: I strongly suspect that if Android development was as economically viable as iOS development, and if it was genuinely possible for large companies to just stop supporting iOS and to "leave iOS users alone", that iOS users would be very unhappy with that outcome. You don't really want to be left alone, you want Facebook, Google, etc to be forced to build apps for you inside of your walled garden.
mthoms 5y ago
I think the no sideloading thing is reasonable, but I have a sincere question - Are you willing to compromise on anything else in the equation so that the "other side" gets something? How about significantly lower App Store fees? What do you think about allowing PWA's and alternative browser engines? What about game streaming? If your "opposition" is willing to admit that your position is understandable, would you be willing to do the same?
- sbuk 5y ago
  I was thinking about this today - they should drop the commission to 10% across the board and change the policy on IAP. For in app media subscriptions, 0%, but stick with Apple Pay only for IAP. For app/game features exluding streaming media, 10%. IAP for game 'content' such a lucky dip boxes (the crap that Epic wants to sell) 100%, because selling this shit should be totally outlawed. Edit: Allow a mechanism for chargeable updates.
orangecat 5y ago
I don’t want Facebook, Google, Amazon, etc to be able to do an end run around App Store controls. Should Apple block the websites of those companies and only allow you to use the apps that they've approved? Don’t tell me what I want. Leave iOS the way I want it. If you want a system that works they way Android does, use Android and leave me alone. You're welcome to hand control of your computing environment to a megacorporation. I'm going to continue to point out that that's a very bad idea for freedom and innovation.
paulddraper 5y ago
> I don’t want Facebook, Google, Amazon, etc to be able to do an end run around App Store controls As evidenced by the fact that on sideload-enabled Android, Facebook, Google, Amazon, etc. have done an end run around Play Store controls. /s

9wzYQbTYsAIc 5y ago

It also eliminates the user’s choice to have a device within a walled garden. It’d be like government restricting the right of OpenBSD to remove sudo.