5 ms·

> 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

> 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.

simonh 5y ago
Yes exactly, nailed it. Fortunately for me I’m not alone and a large number of people feel the same way. Collectively we have enough market power that FaceGoogle can’t ignore us, and have to bite the bullet and be on the App Store. That’s a privileged position for sure, but large swathes of iOS users are not hapless victims of Apple gatekeeping. We’re consciously in league with Apple on this. Apple saved us not just from crappy phones, they didn’t just invent the modern smartphone and make this whole app industry happen, they also saved us from carriers owning phone platforms. If phones had stayed on their old trajectory, we’d be arguing about whether carriers should still be dictating which apps went on their networks and instead of Apple gate keeping it would be AT&T and such. I will be forever grateful to them for killing that future. I do accept that this puts Apple in a powerful position that could be abused. In fact I think there is a case that some of their policies are over-reach. This is a legitimate area for scrutiny and maybe even legislation. However I think those areas are relatively marginal and legislation must be done in the interests of users, and the freedom maximalist position does not properly take into account the vital interest of many, quite possibly most users on iOS.
9wzYQbTYsAIc 5y ago
Keep in mind that the demand for access to iOS users can be met through more traditional means such as the world-wide web. Apple has much less of a right to make demands of others there than it does on the hardware and software platform that they built, themselves. Similarly, since you are attempting to speak on my behalf, as an Apple consumer, I feel the need to correct you: I do not want Facebook to build an iOS app. They can keep that crap to themselves.
- danShumway 5y ago
  > I feel the need to correct you: I do not want Facebook to build an iOS app. They can keep that crap to themselves. So are you OK with Facebook moving their app to a 3rd-party app store? The downside of having sideloading on an iPhone is purely that companies would not be forced to target Apple's app store and that they might not release their apps on the official store. There's some very minor other concerns, but that's the big one. If you're OK with abandoning apps like Facebook and Fortnite, then you should be fine with sideloading being allowed. > can be met through more traditional means such as the world-wide web. iOS is lagging on the web right now, but I agree that putting more attention on Safari and making the web more capable would go a long way towards eliminating my concerns. Note that there is some irony in me championing the web, because the web works the same way. It's a platform that guarantees certain user freedoms and sandboxing, but that is so big that companies can't ignore it. And I'm very happy with that "monopoly". The only real difference is that the web's restrictions are more reasonable to me, that the web doesn't moderate content itself, that it's less controlled by a single company, it has more stakeholders and more input, and that it approaches security through different mechanisms that I think are superior to iOS's. But it's still a platform that I want companies to be forced to target, so I get where iOS users are coming from on this. I just disagree with the platform they want to win.

simonh 5y ago

Yes exactly, nailed it. Fortunately for me I’m not alone and a large number of people feel the same way. Collectively we have enough market power that FaceGoogle can’t ignore us, and have to bite the bullet and be on the App Store. That’s a privileged position for sure, but large swathes of iOS users are not hapless victims of Apple gatekeeping. We’re consciously in league with Apple on this. Apple saved us not just from crappy phones, they didn’t just invent the modern smartphone and make this whole app industry happen, they also saved us from carriers owning phone platforms. If phones had stayed on their old trajectory, we’d be arguing about whether carriers should still be dictating which apps went on their networks and instead of Apple gate keeping it would be AT&T and such. I will be forever grateful to them for killing that future. I do accept that this puts Apple in a powerful position that could be abused. In fact I think there is a case that some of their policies are over-reach. This is a legitimate area for scrutiny and maybe even legislation. However I think those areas are relatively marginal and legislation must be done in the interests of users, and the freedom maximalist position does not properly take into account the vital interest of many, quite possibly most users on iOS.

9wzYQbTYsAIc 5y ago

Keep in mind that the demand for access to iOS users can be met through more traditional means such as the world-wide web. Apple has much less of a right to make demands of others there than it does on the hardware and software platform that they built, themselves. Similarly, since you are attempting to speak on my behalf, as an Apple consumer, I feel the need to correct you: I do not want Facebook to build an iOS app. They can keep that crap to themselves.

danShumway 5y ago
> I feel the need to correct you: I do not want Facebook to build an iOS app. They can keep that crap to themselves. So are you OK with Facebook moving their app to a 3rd-party app store? The downside of having sideloading on an iPhone is purely that companies would not be forced to target Apple's app store and that they might not release their apps on the official store. There's some very minor other concerns, but that's the big one. If you're OK with abandoning apps like Facebook and Fortnite, then you should be fine with sideloading being allowed. > can be met through more traditional means such as the world-wide web. iOS is lagging on the web right now, but I agree that putting more attention on Safari and making the web more capable would go a long way towards eliminating my concerns. Note that there is some irony in me championing the web, because the web works the same way. It's a platform that guarantees certain user freedoms and sandboxing, but that is so big that companies can't ignore it. And I'm very happy with that "monopoly". The only real difference is that the web's restrictions are more reasonable to me, that the web doesn't moderate content itself, that it's less controlled by a single company, it has more stakeholders and more input, and that it approaches security through different mechanisms that I think are superior to iOS's. But it's still a platform that I want companies to be forced to target, so I get where iOS users are coming from on this. I just disagree with the platform they want to win.