3 ms·

The entire "eliminates choice" argument here is "some people want to choose a platform where you can't sideload apps, and if you make us support it that choice

The entire "eliminates choice" argument here is "some people want to choose a platform where you can't sideload apps, and if you make us support it that choice is unavailable". Ugh. I wish businesses would start considering the corrosive effect this kind of "war is peace, freedom is slavery, ignorance is peace" newspeak has on society. Hearing corporate spokesperson after corporate spokesperson (or their toadies in the press) parrot this kind of junk generates untold cynicism. How are we supposed to believe corporations are an important part of a just human society when they have whole departments scheming on how to bamboozle us with this kind of brainwashing? And what does it do to the people who start out earnestly believing in a company's mission, who start internalizing that they need to say whatever they have to to protect the company? It would be way more straightforward to say "we have a lot of non-technical users [referred to as 'your 15-year-old nephew or 75-year-old father' in the article] and they're at risk from exploits via sideloaded apps". Or I mean, it's probably even more straightforward to say "we make lots of money on the App Store; why would we enable competitors when we don't have to?" People are just so tired of everything coming down to "freedom" and "fairness"; this stuff has just lost all meaning. Let's take this seriously and start working against it.

9wzYQbTYsAIc 5y ago
It seems to me that continuing to press on this specific goal of using legal force to induce Apple to allow sideloading could induce extreme opposition from the right. In particular from those that embrace Ayn Rand and her parable of Roark.
- camgunz 5y ago
  I see what you're saying (and understand you're not arguing that) but, I'm not interested in having a freedom of speech argument with people who want to dictate what content Twitter/Facebook must have on their platform. The American right is philosophically and politically bankrupt; we should stop both sides-ing them until they dig out of their ditch.
Dracophoenix 5y ago
I would also like to point out that Apple is lying here. Apple does allow sideloading via Xcode. They just limit it to 3 apps for non-developers.
- musicale 5y ago
  IIRC they cracked down on the duration of certificates for testing purposes after someone used this loophole to create an alternate app store. It's a shame because I thought it was a nice solution for sideloading emulators and the like - just compile them yourself! Enterprise certs were also misused by Facebook, etc..
  - Dracophoenix 5y ago
    I remember the crackdown on enterprise certs. And the one week duration of non-developer signing didn't really change things. You can search for third-party app signers in your search engine of choice and find plenty advertising their services for a fee far below what Apple is demanding for the developer fee. Coming back to my point, Apple still allows side-loading (however limited) while claiming they don't. Claiming otherwise is misspeaking at best, and obfuscation or even deceit at worst. Apple is free to do what it wants with regards to allowing side-loading, but misrepresenting their offerings to the general public should result in the company being taken to task for their statements.
blizdiddy 5y ago
I want to choose a phone where i cant sideload apps. I don't want competing app stores, i want all purchases and subscriptions in one place. But hey, screw what i want, nerds need leet decentralized apps to project their identity.
- camgunz 5y ago
  I do think the "I like walled gardens" (or maybe more charitably the console experience over the PC experience) position is interesting. Like I think the "leet nerd"--and also my--rejoinder to your post is: the answer isn't walled gardens, the answer is open standards that let consumers choose their experiences. But, does that exist at scale anywhere? It might be that this is a false option. If that's the case, and our options really are walled garden vs. balkanization, walled garden doesn't look too bad. Or I could also reframe it as the reason the open standards choose your own experience option doesn't exist is that there's no financial incentive to build it, and capitalism has failed us yet again.

9wzYQbTYsAIc 5y ago

It seems to me that continuing to press on this specific goal of using legal force to induce Apple to allow sideloading could induce extreme opposition from the right. In particular from those that embrace Ayn Rand and her parable of Roark.

camgunz 5y ago
I see what you're saying (and understand you're not arguing that) but, I'm not interested in having a freedom of speech argument with people who want to dictate what content Twitter/Facebook must have on their platform. The American right is philosophically and politically bankrupt; we should stop both sides-ing them until they dig out of their ditch.

Dracophoenix 5y ago

I would also like to point out that Apple is lying here. Apple does allow sideloading via Xcode. They just limit it to 3 apps for non-developers.

musicale 5y ago
IIRC they cracked down on the duration of certificates for testing purposes after someone used this loophole to create an alternate app store. It's a shame because I thought it was a nice solution for sideloading emulators and the like - just compile them yourself! Enterprise certs were also misused by Facebook, etc..
- Dracophoenix 5y ago
  I remember the crackdown on enterprise certs. And the one week duration of non-developer signing didn't really change things. You can search for third-party app signers in your search engine of choice and find plenty advertising their services for a fee far below what Apple is demanding for the developer fee. Coming back to my point, Apple still allows side-loading (however limited) while claiming they don't. Claiming otherwise is misspeaking at best, and obfuscation or even deceit at worst. Apple is free to do what it wants with regards to allowing side-loading, but misrepresenting their offerings to the general public should result in the company being taken to task for their statements.

blizdiddy 5y ago

I want to choose a phone where i cant sideload apps. I don't want competing app stores, i want all purchases and subscriptions in one place. But hey, screw what i want, nerds need leet decentralized apps to project their identity.

camgunz 5y ago
I do think the "I like walled gardens" (or maybe more charitably the console experience over the PC experience) position is interesting. Like I think the "leet nerd"--and also my--rejoinder to your post is: the answer isn't walled gardens, the answer is open standards that let consumers choose their experiences. But, does that exist at scale anywhere? It might be that this is a false option. If that's the case, and our options really are walled garden vs. balkanization, walled garden doesn't look too bad. Or I could also reframe it as the reason the open standards choose your own experience option doesn't exist is that there's no financial incentive to build it, and capitalism has failed us yet again.