3 ms·
The odd thing about this article is that it seems like the author is conceding to removing all restrictions on third-party software being installed on the iPhon
by tshaddox 5y ago
The odd thing about this article is that it seems like the author is conceding to removing all restrictions on third-party software being installed on the iPhone because Apple is not currently restrictive enough on what third-party software makes it into their App Store.
I suppose I can understand the appeal of that argument, since it does resolve apparent hypocrisy and lying in Apple's statements about its policies, but crucially this argument doesn't actually address whether allowing sideloading will be good for users, despite the author indicating that they think it will be ("Until today, I thought forbidding applications sideloading on the iPhone was good for users. But…").
All the arguments that preventing sideloading protects users still apply, and haven't actually been addressed in this article.
- Talanes 5y ago> All the arguments that preventing sideloading protects users still apply, and haven't actually been addressed in this article. I'd say the main argument of the article is that the situation with the App Store in actual reality is so far from ideal that arguments about what happens in an ideal situation are irrelevant.
- howinteresting 5y agoAnd I'd go further and say that the ideal state is unachievable by any centralized entity, no matter how much energy, money or time it spends on the problem. Therefore we must embrace decentralized discovery and safety, and we're deluding ourselves otherwise.