3 ms·

> I also believe that allowing alternative App Stores, or sideloading, on iOS would be destructive. Your long argument boils down to this. I believe that the e

> I also believe that allowing alternative App Stores, or sideloading, on iOS would be destructive. Your long argument boils down to this. I believe that the effect will be the opposite. Increased competition always benefits the customers. AppStore experience on the developer and on the user side is quite lacking, so if Apple would be forced to compete, everybody (but Apple) will benefit. And it will also remove the leverage bad state actors like Russia or China have over the company. You see, iPhone and iPad are not 'appliances', they are supercomputers, and users who want to use them as such must have this option.

quesera 5y ago
> Increased competition always benefits the customers. This is clearly not an absolute truth, as it depends entirely on your criteria for evaluation. > You see, iPhone and iPad are not 'appliances', they are supercomputers, Nope. They're little toy tools. Doesn't matter the processing power, if it's consumed in adding filters to social media photos, or running an ssh session. > and users who want to use them as such must have this option But they do. There are other products. By this logic, users who want the security of knowing they don't have to worry about the device, and want the value conferred by a common platform where vendors don't require users to do weird shit because they don't want to play by benevolent overlord's rules -- thereby cheapening the entire ecosystem ... "must have this option" also. Look, I get it. We disagree. But your preferences are not any more important than mine. It's a mistake to present your strongly-held preferences as absolute truth.
- Andrew_nenakhov 5y ago
  Your choice is to be a slave to a monopoly. Mine is to force a monopoly to stop abusing (and brainwashing!) their customers. I repeat once again: you should not have the ability to impose your lack of the need for freedom on other people. "Buy another device" is not a valid choice. Users buy in because they are advertised 'great user experience', but then this turns into 'we'll block apps that you need on request from your local authocrats'. They aren't told in advance that Apple will abuse their monopoly position and unfair and abusive practice of not allowing third party installs.
  - quesera 5y ago
    Your choice is to use dramatic language to willfully misunderstand the reality of the situation. You should not (and you do not) have the ability to impose your demands on any manufacturer of any product. You cannot compel the work of another human being. Product advertising always comes with presumed context. "Less filling, tastes great" might be a lie, but even if many people agree, many others do not. "Great user experience" is about as obviously-subjective as you can get. This is a red herring. Apple does not abuse a monopoly position. Apple does not have a monopoly on anything. It is not unfair or abusive to not compromise their device and ecosystem (security, privacy, marketing, etc) to allow a niche use. In fact it would be a terrible technical and business decision to reduce the value of your flagship product for the vast majority of the market, to serve a sliver of same. Again: we disagree. If you can't grow past the overdramatic language of righteousness to think about this issue rationally, we will not be able to communicate. I am not insisting that you will agree with me if you are rational -- but you're presenting the arguments of someone who is incapable of thinking beyond their own nose, or believes that the truth they've found for themselves is universal. In short, like a child or a zealot.

quesera 5y ago

> Increased competition always benefits the customers. This is clearly not an absolute truth, as it depends entirely on your criteria for evaluation. > You see, iPhone and iPad are not 'appliances', they are supercomputers, Nope. They're little toy tools. Doesn't matter the processing power, if it's consumed in adding filters to social media photos, or running an ssh session. > and users who want to use them as such must have this option But they do. There are other products. By this logic, users who want the security of knowing they don't have to worry about the device, and want the value conferred by a common platform where vendors don't require users to do weird shit because they don't want to play by benevolent overlord's rules -- thereby cheapening the entire ecosystem ... "must have this option" also. Look, I get it. We disagree. But your preferences are not any more important than mine. It's a mistake to present your strongly-held preferences as absolute truth.

Andrew_nenakhov 5y ago
Your choice is to be a slave to a monopoly. Mine is to force a monopoly to stop abusing (and brainwashing!) their customers. I repeat once again: you should not have the ability to impose your lack of the need for freedom on other people. "Buy another device" is not a valid choice. Users buy in because they are advertised 'great user experience', but then this turns into 'we'll block apps that you need on request from your local authocrats'. They aren't told in advance that Apple will abuse their monopoly position and unfair and abusive practice of not allowing third party installs.
- quesera 5y ago
  Your choice is to use dramatic language to willfully misunderstand the reality of the situation. You should not (and you do not) have the ability to impose your demands on any manufacturer of any product. You cannot compel the work of another human being. Product advertising always comes with presumed context. "Less filling, tastes great" might be a lie, but even if many people agree, many others do not. "Great user experience" is about as obviously-subjective as you can get. This is a red herring. Apple does not abuse a monopoly position. Apple does not have a monopoly on anything. It is not unfair or abusive to not compromise their device and ecosystem (security, privacy, marketing, etc) to allow a niche use. In fact it would be a terrible technical and business decision to reduce the value of your flagship product for the vast majority of the market, to serve a sliver of same. Again: we disagree. If you can't grow past the overdramatic language of righteousness to think about this issue rationally, we will not be able to communicate. I am not insisting that you will agree with me if you are rational -- but you're presenting the arguments of someone who is incapable of thinking beyond their own nose, or believes that the truth they've found for themselves is universal. In short, like a child or a zealot.