3 ms·

So you also trust Apple better than yourself, because if you will ever find yourself needing an app that Apple blocks, well, you'll have to accept that it is in

So you also trust Apple better than yourself, because if you will ever find yourself needing an app that Apple blocks, well, you'll have to accept that it is in your 'best interests'.

criddell 5y ago
Generally, it's true. If Apple blocked nothing, how many flashlight apps that also mine bitcoin would be installed?
- emn13 5y ago
  So first of all - just because the end-user wants Apple to check for actively malicious programs doesn't mean they assent to all forms of control. Secondly, even on the matter of software deemed malicious by Apple, I think it's questionable how reasonable it is for Apple to entirely remove the end-user from the decision making process. Even on really weakly policed platforms like windows, people still tend to leave virus scanners enabled; and on android similarly most people don't choose to expose themselves to unnecessary risk by sidestepping its store - at least as far as I know. Users regularly do really stupid things, so some level of external control is perhaps not unreasonable, but how much, and for what? And should Apple even get to be involved in that decision?
- Andrew_nenakhov 5y ago
  Do not forget that in some countries Apple also blocks apps that the current regime deems dangerous for it. Like, apps of the opposition news outlets, etc. Apple is quite content with taking your freedom away: if you needed it, you wouldn't have relinquished controls of YOUR phone for other people to decide what to run on it.
  - criddell 5y ago
    Google does this too. As I understand it, their choice is to remove the app or stop selling devices, software, and services in those countries. This is definitely something that tech companies could do better at. I wish they would choose the latter option just once.
    - Andrew_nenakhov 5y ago
      At the present moment, I can easily sideload any app on Android, I can even install a third-party appstore like F-droid (this freedom can be taken away by Google in three future, but still far it is available). Nothing even remotely similar is possible on non-jailbroken iPhone.
    - howinteresting 5y ago
      But even if Google removes it, you can just install the app on Android anyway.
  - bradknowles 5y ago
    That requirement is never going away, and Apple is never the only company involved in doing that kind of stuff. Therefore, that argument really has no bearing on this discussion. Whether Apple should try harder to stand up to these repressive governments is a good discussion to have, but it’s not the one we’re having right now,
r00fus 5y ago
Have you ever tried to cancel a newspaper/gym membership? It's not easy. I want freedom from my subscriptions. "Freedom from" is a quite liberating concept.

So you also trust Apple better than yourself, because if you will ever find yourself needing an app that Apple blocks, well, you'll have to accept that it is in your 'best interests'.

criddell 5y ago

Generally, it's true. If Apple blocked nothing, how many flashlight apps that also mine bitcoin would be installed?

emn13 5y ago
So first of all - just because the end-user wants Apple to check for actively malicious programs doesn't mean they assent to all forms of control. Secondly, even on the matter of software deemed malicious by Apple, I think it's questionable how reasonable it is for Apple to entirely remove the end-user from the decision making process. Even on really weakly policed platforms like windows, people still tend to leave virus scanners enabled; and on android similarly most people don't choose to expose themselves to unnecessary risk by sidestepping its store - at least as far as I know. Users regularly do really stupid things, so some level of external control is perhaps not unreasonable, but how much, and for what? And should Apple even get to be involved in that decision?
Andrew_nenakhov 5y ago
Do not forget that in some countries Apple also blocks apps that the current regime deems dangerous for it. Like, apps of the opposition news outlets, etc. Apple is quite content with taking your freedom away: if you needed it, you wouldn't have relinquished controls of YOUR phone for other people to decide what to run on it.
- criddell 5y ago
  Google does this too. As I understand it, their choice is to remove the app or stop selling devices, software, and services in those countries. This is definitely something that tech companies could do better at. I wish they would choose the latter option just once.
  - Andrew_nenakhov 5y ago
    At the present moment, I can easily sideload any app on Android, I can even install a third-party appstore like F-droid (this freedom can be taken away by Google in three future, but still far it is available). Nothing even remotely similar is possible on non-jailbroken iPhone.
  - howinteresting 5y ago
    But even if Google removes it, you can just install the app on Android anyway.
- bradknowles 5y ago
  That requirement is never going away, and Apple is never the only company involved in doing that kind of stuff. Therefore, that argument really has no bearing on this discussion. Whether Apple should try harder to stand up to these repressive governments is a good discussion to have, but it’s not the one we’re having right now,

r00fus 5y ago

Have you ever tried to cancel a newspaper/gym membership? It's not easy. I want freedom from my subscriptions. "Freedom from" is a quite liberating concept.