4 ms·

But only Apple and Google are big enough to fight the other bad actors. Sure, their interests may not always be aligned with mine, but we are much more likely

But only Apple and Google are big enough to fight the other bad actors. Sure, their interests may not always be aligned with mine, but we are much more likely to be aligned than mine with the bad actors. So, I pay my money, and I get Apple to be my Big Brother who protects me from the bad actors. And if I decide that I no longer want Apple to play that role, then I can go buy an Andoproid device, or whatever. But Apple can’t effectively play Big Brother in that role and protect me from all the other bad actors, if they are forced to allow alternative app stores and sideloading. It’s like cryptography. Either it’s broken, or it’s not. Or Pregnancy. You are either pregnant or not. You can’t be a little bit pregnant, or have crypto that is only a little bit broken.

vineyardmike 5y ago
> if they are forced to allow alternative app stores and sideloading. You can not use alternatives. It's like pregnancy, if you wear protection, you can have safe sex. If you're scared protection isn't enough, you can not have sex and you won't get pregnant. Ok wait that's a weird example that isn't supposed to be preachy but the point is you can always not use non-apple app stores and apple can still protect you.
- Retric 5y ago
  The largest part of this protection is major companies not being exclusive on other app stores. If EA says all games must be downloaded from X, people are going to use X even if X doesn’t offer refunds of any kind etc.
- runawaybottle 5y ago
  For a lot of the world, they will not be able to say ‘no’ to a Facebook App Store. That’s the attack vector. Selling an ad-model based FB app on the FB App Store might have more reach than simply targeting iOS users. If Zuck’s money is behind this, it’s a really good checkmate. Where are the real journalists when you need them? We need a list of whoever is funding these lobbyists.
oddity 5y ago
> But only Apple and Google are big enough to fight the other bad actors "big" is not the deciding factor. Amazon and Microsoft are also big. They do not decide what's on your phone. Apple's and Google's stores are big by default because Apple and Google have control of the platform. It's not the other way around. It's also not binary. If the store is decoupled, they will have less control, but not no control. Influence is weighted by user-base. > Sure, their interests may not always be aligned with mine, but we are much more likely to be aligned than mine with the bad actors Their interests are more aligned because they sell you the platform. They have many more ways to do this that aren't dependent on a quality app store. A store that survives on just the store is even more aligned to maximizing loyalty and trust in that store. > And if I decide that I no longer want Apple to play that role, then I can go buy an Andoproid device, or whatever Maybe you can, but for most people in the world, a phone is a significant investment and not a choice you can easily switch when you've already spent significant money in the ecosystem. > It’s like cryptography. Either it’s broken, or it’s not It's not. Even now, there are practical limits to what Apple can demand of its developers. Less control means less power, not no power. A store filled with bad apps is not a store most people will willingly buy from, unless there is external pressure forcing them. I don't think there's really much of an argument there. What this discussion is really about is the Facebooks of the world that have tremendous influence and also do shady things. Already, we see that Facebook plays by different rules with different stores, with greater tracking on Google platforms. This wouldn't change if Apple's store were still big enough to matter, but if Apple's power were weakened there's a risk that Facebook (for example) might have enough power to not care. So, this is what it's really about: some people trust Apple more than Facebook and want Apple to have total power in that relationship by being bigger than Facebook. This necessarily piggybacks off of the power given by people who do not care about or trust Apple, gained by means that are not the quality of the store. These people will likely stay with Apple regardless of how much Apple abuses its trust, but yet the people that do trust Apple think their trust matters.
- heavyset_go 5y ago
  > Amazon and Microsoft are also big. They do not decide what's on your phone. I agree with your point, but just want to point out that Microsoft does similar things on Windows with Defender that Apple does on macOS with Gatekeeper, and both can be described as the companies deciding what does or doesn't get to run on your computers. Both companies require you to buy certificates and remain in good standing with them if you want your software to run on Windows or macOS without a problem. Microsoft and Apple can revoke certificates whenever they want for any reason they want, and after doing so, Defender and Gatekeeper will prevent apps signed with those certificates from running on either OS. macOS treats unsigned apps as if they're radioactive, and hides the ability to run them from the user. The switch to the M1 platform brought a new requirement that all apps must be signed as unsigned binaries won't run on M1 Macs. Windows Defender will also treat unsigned apps as if they're radioactive, and prevents users from running them initially. If you want your apps to actually run on modern macOS or Windows systems without users thinking they're either broken or malicious, you need to pay for certificates and remain in good standing with both companies. Apple goes one step further and requires all apps to be Notarized, which involves uploading the app to Apple's server so it can analyze and approve it to run on macOS.
leppr 5y ago
> But only Apple and Google are big enough to fight the other bad actors. Sure, their interests may not always be aligned with mine, but we are much more likely to be aligned than mine with the bad actors. So, I pay my money, and I get Apple to be my Big Brother who protects me from the bad actors. And if I decide that I no longer want Apple to play that role, then I can go buy an Andoproid device, or whatever. That's quite a Stockholm syndrome-y view. What protects users, first and foremost, are users themselves. Take the imaginary scenario of "WhatsApp requiring constant location data". On an open platform, other users will provide you tools to defeat these requirements, either by modifying the app code itself, adding code around it to provide it fake data, or simply not allow these APIs in the first place. If WhatsApp is really clever about it and detects all attempts at thwarting the surveillance, then users will develop and distribute an alternative messaging service (see Signal gaining serious traction after a way milder anti-user update by WhatsApp a few months ago). It's only in the context of a lack of competition that such bad behavior is tolerated by users.

vineyardmike 5y ago

> if they are forced to allow alternative app stores and sideloading. You can not use alternatives. It's like pregnancy, if you wear protection, you can have safe sex. If you're scared protection isn't enough, you can not have sex and you won't get pregnant. Ok wait that's a weird example that isn't supposed to be preachy but the point is you can always not use non-apple app stores and apple can still protect you.

Retric 5y ago
The largest part of this protection is major companies not being exclusive on other app stores. If EA says all games must be downloaded from X, people are going to use X even if X doesn’t offer refunds of any kind etc.
runawaybottle 5y ago
For a lot of the world, they will not be able to say ‘no’ to a Facebook App Store. That’s the attack vector. Selling an ad-model based FB app on the FB App Store might have more reach than simply targeting iOS users. If Zuck’s money is behind this, it’s a really good checkmate. Where are the real journalists when you need them? We need a list of whoever is funding these lobbyists.

oddity 5y ago

> But only Apple and Google are big enough to fight the other bad actors "big" is not the deciding factor. Amazon and Microsoft are also big. They do not decide what's on your phone. Apple's and Google's stores are big by default because Apple and Google have control of the platform. It's not the other way around. It's also not binary. If the store is decoupled, they will have less control, but not no control. Influence is weighted by user-base. > Sure, their interests may not always be aligned with mine, but we are much more likely to be aligned than mine with the bad actors Their interests are more aligned because they sell you the platform. They have many more ways to do this that aren't dependent on a quality app store. A store that survives on just the store is even more aligned to maximizing loyalty and trust in that store. > And if I decide that I no longer want Apple to play that role, then I can go buy an Andoproid device, or whatever Maybe you can, but for most people in the world, a phone is a significant investment and not a choice you can easily switch when you've already spent significant money in the ecosystem. > It’s like cryptography. Either it’s broken, or it’s not It's not. Even now, there are practical limits to what Apple can demand of its developers. Less control means less power, not no power. A store filled with bad apps is not a store most people will willingly buy from, unless there is external pressure forcing them. I don't think there's really much of an argument there. What this discussion is really about is the Facebooks of the world that have tremendous influence and also do shady things. Already, we see that Facebook plays by different rules with different stores, with greater tracking on Google platforms. This wouldn't change if Apple's store were still big enough to matter, but if Apple's power were weakened there's a risk that Facebook (for example) might have enough power to not care. So, this is what it's really about: some people trust Apple more than Facebook and want Apple to have total power in that relationship by being bigger than Facebook. This necessarily piggybacks off of the power given by people who do not care about or trust Apple, gained by means that are not the quality of the store. These people will likely stay with Apple regardless of how much Apple abuses its trust, but yet the people that do trust Apple think their trust matters.

heavyset_go 5y ago
> Amazon and Microsoft are also big. They do not decide what's on your phone. I agree with your point, but just want to point out that Microsoft does similar things on Windows with Defender that Apple does on macOS with Gatekeeper, and both can be described as the companies deciding what does or doesn't get to run on your computers. Both companies require you to buy certificates and remain in good standing with them if you want your software to run on Windows or macOS without a problem. Microsoft and Apple can revoke certificates whenever they want for any reason they want, and after doing so, Defender and Gatekeeper will prevent apps signed with those certificates from running on either OS. macOS treats unsigned apps as if they're radioactive, and hides the ability to run them from the user. The switch to the M1 platform brought a new requirement that all apps must be signed as unsigned binaries won't run on M1 Macs. Windows Defender will also treat unsigned apps as if they're radioactive, and prevents users from running them initially. If you want your apps to actually run on modern macOS or Windows systems without users thinking they're either broken or malicious, you need to pay for certificates and remain in good standing with both companies. Apple goes one step further and requires all apps to be Notarized, which involves uploading the app to Apple's server so it can analyze and approve it to run on macOS.

leppr 5y ago

> But only Apple and Google are big enough to fight the other bad actors. Sure, their interests may not always be aligned with mine, but we are much more likely to be aligned than mine with the bad actors. So, I pay my money, and I get Apple to be my Big Brother who protects me from the bad actors. And if I decide that I no longer want Apple to play that role, then I can go buy an Andoproid device, or whatever. That's quite a Stockholm syndrome-y view. What protects users, first and foremost, are users themselves. Take the imaginary scenario of "WhatsApp requiring constant location data". On an open platform, other users will provide you tools to defeat these requirements, either by modifying the app code itself, adding code around it to provide it fake data, or simply not allow these APIs in the first place. If WhatsApp is really clever about it and detects all attempts at thwarting the surveillance, then users will develop and distribute an alternative messaging service (see Signal gaining serious traction after a way milder anti-user update by WhatsApp a few months ago). It's only in the context of a lack of competition that such bad behavior is tolerated by users.