5 ms·

I think the headline is wrong. Sideloading or alternate app stores wouldn't be required, thats not the purpose of the bill. Sideloading and alternate app stores

by kart23 5y ago

I think the headline is wrong. Sideloading or alternate app stores wouldn't be required, thats not the purpose of the bill. Sideloading and alternate app stores is a legitimate privacy/security problem that will be exempted under the bill. >"unless necessary for the security or functioning of the covered platform," from https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/senate-bill/2992/text https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/senate-bill/299... I think it would actually be very good for the app store, outlawing a lot of the restriction that Apple places on things like payments. I really don't know what to think about the bill overall. It would definitely have the largest impact on Amazon, their basics line would pretty much be killed by the law. Google rankings would also be overhauled, no more flights at the top of the page. The testimony in support of the bill by Sonos [0] and Tile [1] is also a good read. [0] https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/Eddie%20Lazarus%20Written%20Testimony.pdf https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/Eddie%20Lazar... [1] https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/04.21.21%20Kirsten%20Daru%20Senate%20Judiciary%20Testimony%20Final.pdf https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/04.21.21%20Ki...

dang 5y ago
The headline was originally "U.S. Senate panel approves antitrust bill that would allow sideloading" (before we changed the URL from https://www.macrumors.com/2022/01/20/senate-panel-sideloading-bill-advances/ https://www.macrumors.com/2022/01/20/senate-panel-sideloadin....
sebow 5y ago
Using terms like sideloading is precisely why the vast majority of the public doesn't give a damn about this issue.Free 'social experiment' idea: ask everyone who was a smartphone what is sideloading, what is installing, what's the difference and what's common. Altering our language to appease companies and somehow pretend like sideloading means something different than installing is why we're losing, precisely because it's a tactic to erase correlation of the word and the meaning.
- 1vuio0pswjnm7 5y ago
  As part of the general public I feel the same way about these made-up terms. However, I believe if there is an increase in litigation, as a result of new "anti-tech" laws, that is allowed to proceed through to discovery, then lawyers will cut through the BS. The made-up terms will be translated to "plain English" that the general population, including judges, can understand. It is part of the job. There is an old theory that settlement may actually be averse to justice. In the case of "tech" companies and their nefarious practices, questions have been allowed to remain unanswered and issues to remain unresolved for the general public. This has been going on for a very long time. Uncertainty has been allowed to persist for decades. Who benefits from that uncertainty.
lostmsu 5y ago
The majority of experts will agree, that restricting sideloading is not 'necessary for the security'.
- Zelizz 5y ago
  Depends how tight you want your security to be, risk tolerance varies.
  - AnthonyMouse 5y ago
    If you don't want apps from outside the store on your phone then don't install any. External apps should obviously require the device owner to authenticate in order to install. If this can happen without the device owner authenticating, that is a security problem, but so are a thousand other things, like copying your data off the device, that are no problem at all unless they can happen without authenticating.
    - Zelizz 5y ago
      That's an oversimplification. Lots of people in this thread have mentioned consequences of giving companies like Facebook the option of moving to sideload-only, and how that normalizes not having a quality/policy gatekeeper for installed apps. You can't enforce good app behavior purely from API design.
      - AnthonyMouse 5y ago
        Facebook is a special case with its own solution: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30017171 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30017171 Then you have a truth. The extent to which people want Apple to curate which apps they can install will control the amount of leverage Apple has to do it with. If people really want it, they'll put up a strong resistance to installing apps from other sources, even if Apple isn't forcing them to. Then Apple will have leverage to enforce good behavior. Or people will only switch to other high quality stores that also reject bad apps. If it turns out hardly anybody cares, they won't. But then the argument that most people are buying Apple products specifically because they want a curated experience would disintegrate against empirical evidence.

by kart23 5y ago

dang 5y ago

The headline was originally "U.S. Senate panel approves antitrust bill that would allow sideloading" (before we changed the URL from https://www.macrumors.com/2022/01/20/senate-panel-sideloading-bill-advances/ https://www.macrumors.com/2022/01/20/senate-panel-sideloadin....

sebow 5y ago

Using terms like sideloading is precisely why the vast majority of the public doesn't give a damn about this issue.Free 'social experiment' idea: ask everyone who was a smartphone what is sideloading, what is installing, what's the difference and what's common. Altering our language to appease companies and somehow pretend like sideloading means something different than installing is why we're losing, precisely because it's a tactic to erase correlation of the word and the meaning.

1vuio0pswjnm7 5y ago
As part of the general public I feel the same way about these made-up terms. However, I believe if there is an increase in litigation, as a result of new "anti-tech" laws, that is allowed to proceed through to discovery, then lawyers will cut through the BS. The made-up terms will be translated to "plain English" that the general population, including judges, can understand. It is part of the job. There is an old theory that settlement may actually be averse to justice. In the case of "tech" companies and their nefarious practices, questions have been allowed to remain unanswered and issues to remain unresolved for the general public. This has been going on for a very long time. Uncertainty has been allowed to persist for decades. Who benefits from that uncertainty.

lostmsu 5y ago

The majority of experts will agree, that restricting sideloading is not 'necessary for the security'.

Zelizz 5y ago
Depends how tight you want your security to be, risk tolerance varies.
- AnthonyMouse 5y ago
  If you don't want apps from outside the store on your phone then don't install any. External apps should obviously require the device owner to authenticate in order to install. If this can happen without the device owner authenticating, that is a security problem, but so are a thousand other things, like copying your data off the device, that are no problem at all unless they can happen without authenticating.
  - Zelizz 5y ago
    That's an oversimplification. Lots of people in this thread have mentioned consequences of giving companies like Facebook the option of moving to sideload-only, and how that normalizes not having a quality/policy gatekeeper for installed apps. You can't enforce good app behavior purely from API design.
    - AnthonyMouse 5y ago
      Facebook is a special case with its own solution: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30017171 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30017171 Then you have a truth. The extent to which people want Apple to curate which apps they can install will control the amount of leverage Apple has to do it with. If people really want it, they'll put up a strong resistance to installing apps from other sources, even if Apple isn't forcing them to. Then Apple will have leverage to enforce good behavior. Or people will only switch to other high quality stores that also reject bad apps. If it turns out hardly anybody cares, they won't. But then the argument that most people are buying Apple products specifically because they want a curated experience would disintegrate against empirical evidence.