4 ms·

> The reason it's a problem is, as it turns out, this model works really well for a lot of people and is fantastically popular. Turns out a lot of people don't

> The reason it's a problem is, as it turns out, this model works really well for a lot of people and is fantastically popular. Turns out a lot of people don't want to deal with the responsibilities of completely owning a device (updates, anti-malware, app origin), and are willing to give up some control/ownership in exchange for convenience and being able to get on with life. (Certainly not everyone of course.) Whether this view of convenience is short-sighted and will be regretted long-term remains to be seen.

nixpulvis 5y ago
There is absolutely no reason we can't have our cake and eat it too.
- api 5y ago
  That would require solving hard security problems instead of punting on them by whitelisting. Apple’s policies are guided in part by profit motive but also by security nihilism.
  - skohan 5y ago
    There’s no reason these security measures couldn’t be opt-out
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
simonh 5y ago
If we regret it long term, people will start buying different products with the features they want.
- TeMPOraL 5y ago
  They won't, if those products aren't available on the market. Which they won't be, because currently the "managed" approach yields more revenue. "Voting with your wallet" doesn't work on most technology markets, where products and services are not commodities, and where the barriers to entry are insanely high. Yes - insanely high. Sure, you can get a $100 computer and a $10/month Internet connection and start writing software for millions, except it won't do you much good - software is the easy part. To compete with Facebook, you need to bootstrap a whole social network. To compete with Apple and Google on the phone market, you'll need to bootstrap your own hardware manufacturing, because all the smartphone vendors are into the same user-hostile crap these days. Projects like PinePhone are probably as far as you can reasonably get on the "smartphone, except not user hostile" front. It's worth looking into why they don't succeed. It's not as simple as "people must not truly want it because they aren't paying the premium to get it".
AnIdiotOnTheNet 5y ago
It's irrelevant. We don't get to tell people what they are and are not willing to pay for.
- EvanAnderson 5y ago
  Consumer protection law is the tool that allows that to happen.
  - AnIdiotOnTheNet 5y ago
    Ironic that we're talking about using law to protect consumers from a company by not allowing them to use a walled garden to protect consumers.
    - EvanAnderson 5y ago
      The App Store model is about extracting rents. That the walled garden offers "protection" to consumers is incidental. The "privacy" and "security" stance taken by Apple is about protecting their revenues and burnishing their image in the eyes of the public. When their revenues are at risk (like their concessions with China) they take the financially expedient route.
      - AnIdiotOnTheNet 5y ago
        > The App Store model is about extracting rents. That the walled garden offers "protection" to consumers is incidental. Not according to many on HN who argue that it is precisely why they purchased an iOS device instead of an Android one. I think we have to be really careful about trying to push our ideals on others via regulation.
        handrous 5y ago
        > Not according to many on HN who argue that it is precisely why they purchased an iOS device instead of an Android one. raises hand It's not the only reason, but it is a reason. With government asleep at the wheel on regulating things like subscriptions, scams, spyware (which is, like, most software these days), et c., I'm living the anarcho-libertarian dream of paying a corporation to be my regulator. As it naturally would in the real world, this requires them to be big enough to distort and control markets, for it to be worth paying for. Does that mean they're behaving as a monopoly? Yeah, probably. This sucks, of course, but it's what we've got.
robbedpeter 5y ago
You frame it as a conscious choice, but in my experience more than 9 of 10 Apple users are completely ignorant of the issues. They only "know what they like" or think "Apple is best. " There's no consideration at all of reasons or consequences.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- zapzupnz 5y ago
  I'd be willing to be those 9 out of 10 users barely know how to use a desktop computer beyond "click on the button for the internet". I suppose that's the difference: the price they pay in user control and freedom is swapped for experiences and abilities to which they would never otherwise be exposed. I prefer not to frame those people as ignorant in a negative way. It is we who set them up with those devices and taught them how to use them, we were just as ignorant.
  - nraynaud 5y ago
    I tend to agree, it's about how you manage your focus and memory in a world of distractions.
- simonh 5y ago
  There absolutely is consideration of the reasons or consequences relevant to them, that they care about. The fact is the things you think they should care about, they just flat out don't, and that's fine.
  - Cederfjard 5y ago
    I tend to agree with you, but it’s also definitely possible that segments of the population are unaware of issues they would care about if they were.
    - robbedpeter 5y ago
grishka 5y ago
All of today's desktop browsers come with developer tools built in. How many people know that, and how many know how to use them? Many Android phones come with unlockable bootloaders. Again, how many of those who bought such a phone know about this capability? What I'm trying to say that it's fine to sell a device in a locked down state. What's not fine, however, is not providing an unlocking mechanism, possibly deliberately well-hidden like it is in case of Android bootloaders, for those who know what they're doing.

nixpulvis 5y ago

There is absolutely no reason we can't have our cake and eat it too.

api 5y ago
That would require solving hard security problems instead of punting on them by whitelisting. Apple’s policies are guided in part by profit motive but also by security nihilism.
- skohan 5y ago
  There’s no reason these security measures couldn’t be opt-out
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]

simonh 5y ago

If we regret it long term, people will start buying different products with the features they want.

TeMPOraL 5y ago
They won't, if those products aren't available on the market. Which they won't be, because currently the "managed" approach yields more revenue. "Voting with your wallet" doesn't work on most technology markets, where products and services are not commodities, and where the barriers to entry are insanely high. Yes - insanely high. Sure, you can get a $100 computer and a $10/month Internet connection and start writing software for millions, except it won't do you much good - software is the easy part. To compete with Facebook, you need to bootstrap a whole social network. To compete with Apple and Google on the phone market, you'll need to bootstrap your own hardware manufacturing, because all the smartphone vendors are into the same user-hostile crap these days. Projects like PinePhone are probably as far as you can reasonably get on the "smartphone, except not user hostile" front. It's worth looking into why they don't succeed. It's not as simple as "people must not truly want it because they aren't paying the premium to get it".

AnIdiotOnTheNet 5y ago

It's irrelevant. We don't get to tell people what they are and are not willing to pay for.

EvanAnderson 5y ago
Consumer protection law is the tool that allows that to happen.
- AnIdiotOnTheNet 5y ago
  Ironic that we're talking about using law to protect consumers from a company by not allowing them to use a walled garden to protect consumers.
  - EvanAnderson 5y ago
    The App Store model is about extracting rents. That the walled garden offers "protection" to consumers is incidental. The "privacy" and "security" stance taken by Apple is about protecting their revenues and burnishing their image in the eyes of the public. When their revenues are at risk (like their concessions with China) they take the financially expedient route.
    - AnIdiotOnTheNet 5y ago
      > The App Store model is about extracting rents. That the walled garden offers "protection" to consumers is incidental. Not according to many on HN who argue that it is precisely why they purchased an iOS device instead of an Android one. I think we have to be really careful about trying to push our ideals on others via regulation.
      - handrous 5y ago
        > Not according to many on HN who argue that it is precisely why they purchased an iOS device instead of an Android one. raises hand It's not the only reason, but it is a reason. With government asleep at the wheel on regulating things like subscriptions, scams, spyware (which is, like, most software these days), et c., I'm living the anarcho-libertarian dream of paying a corporation to be my regulator. As it naturally would in the real world, this requires them to be big enough to distort and control markets, for it to be worth paying for. Does that mean they're behaving as a monopoly? Yeah, probably. This sucks, of course, but it's what we've got.

robbedpeter 5y ago

You frame it as a conscious choice, but in my experience more than 9 of 10 Apple users are completely ignorant of the issues. They only "know what they like" or think "Apple is best. " There's no consideration at all of reasons or consequences.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
zapzupnz 5y ago
I'd be willing to be those 9 out of 10 users barely know how to use a desktop computer beyond "click on the button for the internet". I suppose that's the difference: the price they pay in user control and freedom is swapped for experiences and abilities to which they would never otherwise be exposed. I prefer not to frame those people as ignorant in a negative way. It is we who set them up with those devices and taught them how to use them, we were just as ignorant.
- nraynaud 5y ago
  I tend to agree, it's about how you manage your focus and memory in a world of distractions.
simonh 5y ago
There absolutely is consideration of the reasons or consequences relevant to them, that they care about. The fact is the things you think they should care about, they just flat out don't, and that's fine.
- Cederfjard 5y ago
  I tend to agree with you, but it’s also definitely possible that segments of the population are unaware of issues they would care about if they were.
  - robbedpeter 5y ago

grishka 5y ago

All of today's desktop browsers come with developer tools built in. How many people know that, and how many know how to use them? Many Android phones come with unlockable bootloaders. Again, how many of those who bought such a phone know about this capability? What I'm trying to say that it's fine to sell a device in a locked down state. What's not fine, however, is not providing an unlocking mechanism, possibly deliberately well-hidden like it is in case of Android bootloaders, for those who know what they're doing.