4 ms·

Quite a few are commenting from their own perspective, as a consumer/user of an Apple device, and whether you're happy with it or not. That's not really the po

by fleddr 4y ago

Quite a few are commenting from their own perspective, as a consumer/user of an Apple device, and whether you're happy with it or not. That's not really the point. The emphasis of this legislation first and foremost is on developers. Whom need/deserve a level playing field, instead of having the odds stacked up against them. A return to more open computing should be celebrated, even if it remains to be seen what will happen. And even if you're a die hard fan of closed computing, nothing bad will happen. You'll simply pick Safari, never sideload an app, and pay with Apple Pay. We can coexist.

capableweb 4y ago
> And even if you're a die hard fan of closed computing, nothing bad will happen. You'll simply pick Safari, never sideload an app, and pay with Apple Pay. We can coexist. This is the important point. Just like with decentralized VS centralized debate, starting out with one of them, decides if you can even have the other one. If you have a decentralized foundation (like HTTP), you can always add centralized entities on top, if that's favorable (like Twitter). But the other way is not true, you can't build decentralized things on a centralized foundation. If you have open computing on mobile devices, you can always opt-in to just stay within one ecosystem without being hurt by the openness. But the other way around is not true.
- n8cpdx 4y ago
  This is naive and assumes that there aren’t bigger, badder actors to deal with - Facebook, Google, and others can and will abuse their position. This will make the iPhone worse for everyone, especially if chrome manages a dominant position and developers can stop supporting safari. It will probably make my Mac worse, too. I still haven’t heard a single good reason why people who want sideloading can’t just use Android. iPhone isn’t even close to dominant in Europe. Hands. Off. My. iPhone.
  - smoldesu 4y ago
    Google and Facebook are subject to legislation as well. If Apple worked with lawmakers to set good privacy precedents for these companies, then you might have an argument. Instead, all we proved is that private corporations feel no obligation to play nice with their competitors, so now our legislators have to fix it for us. > Hands. Off. My. iPhone. You don't own a damn thing. Only Apple (and evidently, governments) makes the choices on "your" iPhone.
  - capableweb 4y ago
    > This is naive and assumes that there aren’t bigger, badder actors to deal with - Facebook, Google, and others can and will abuse their position. This will make the iPhone worse for everyone, especially if chrome manages a dominant position and developers can stop supporting safari. It will probably make my Mac worse, too. That's why we have regulation, which is quickly ("quick" in terms of legislation at least) coming now. If the only reason people use Safari today instead of another browser, is because they are forced to use Safari, even if there is a better one, isn't that kind of messed up in the first place? How would the openness make your Mac worse?! You think your Mac is worse today because you can install any applications you want? You think your Mac would become better if Apple disabled application installation outside of the App Store? > I still haven’t heard a single good reason why people who want sideloading can’t just use Android. iPhone isn’t even close to dominant in Europe. I have a iPhone, and I'd like to be able to use whatever application I want on it. I'd also like to be able to develop applications on it, but my desktop is Windows and Arch Linux, so today I can't. I love the Apple hardware, but I hate the UI and that I'm not able to even open it up like a normal USB device to transfer files. The UX of Apple stuff is really horrible (even if you buy into the whole ecosystem), but the hardware is very nice. So I'd like to be able to finally own the device I buy from Apple.
    - dwaite 4y ago
      > If the only reason people use Safari today instead of another browser, is because they are forced to use Safari, even if there is a better one, isn't that kind of messed up in the first place? The vast majority of people generally don't think a browser is 'better' outside of the chrome - tab functions, bookmark syncing, password management, etc. IMHO when people complain about Safari, it is usually web developers who wish they could block MobileSafari and just mandate everyone use Chrome. I've certainly seen developers do that for desktop Safari (most notably Google).
      - capableweb 4y ago
        I think you missed the core of my argument there. Again, if the only reason people are using your browser is because they are forced to, you're doing something wrong. Just because Chrome or Firefox could use their own rendering engine, doesn't mean the majority of iPhone users would switch to it. People who use Safari today would continue to use it even if Chrome/Firefox could switch their rendering engine.
  - xdennis 4y ago
    > Hands. Off. My. iPhone. Nobody is forcing you to sideload anything. The way I see it, you enjoy a walled garden where many people are competing to provide you with apps. But they have to follow Apple's directives. The EU is also such a walled garden where companies have to follow the rules. In essence, nobody is forcing anybody. If you don't want Apple's control, buy an Android phone. If Apple doesn't like the EU's control, it shouldn't sell in the EU. So when you say "hands off my phone" I say "hands off MY phone". You don't like the EU's regulation. I don't like Apple's regulation. You might say that Apple should be able to do that because it is a private company. But that private company brought in more net sales in 2021 (366 billion) than my country's GDP (Romania, 288 billion). I have more choice in moving countries (26 other countries in the EU) than phone platforms (basically 2).
    - dwaite 4y ago
      > Nobody is forcing you to sideload anything. Yet. Facebook and Google were both previously caught using enterprise certificates on iOS to ship software to consumers outside the store, that would capture network traffic destined for other sites and information on what third party native applications were run. The problem a lot of iOS users have with offering side loading is that the store, for better or worse, is serving the role of a regulatory body saying things like 'you must get consent to track the user', or 'you must allow users to delete their account and any stored information'. Unfortunately, the EU does not appear to be planning to add regulations to protect user privacy, nor are they properly enforcing existing regulations like GDPR. They are really just moving power around to other large corporations - e.g. letting banks use NFC without paying Apple their 0.15% Apple Pay commission, or letting Facebook track the user in ways that Apple does not allow.
  - jpambrun 4y ago
    Exactly, Hands. Off. My. iPhone, let me install what ever I want on my device.
n8cpdx 4y ago
What do you think the ratio of developers to users is? Coexisting with closed computing is buying an Android, not forcing open the gates with a battering ram. It’s incredibly naive to think opening the ecosystem won’t lead to abuse and a worse experience for everyone that doesn’t have a niche appreciation for browser engines.
- drdaeman 4y ago
  It's like a two-party system, when both parties are messed up, each in their own unique manner. One might be subjectively much better than another (subjectively = for a specific individual and their beliefs), but they still suck and you wish there would be someone else who'd not just have the good bits but also not have that stupid stance on the bad ones - again, for subjective "good" and "bad" of a particular individual. This is how it is with Android and iOS. They both suck, just differently. And there are people who are much more happy with iOS overall - it sucks less for them - they're not going to be happy with Android, even though openness is something they see as a good thing. So your solution is simply not working for them. I don't know how big this group is. If they're large enough to influence and impose a political will to pass this legislation - I'd guess, quite a lot of people. So I don't think it would be "worse experience for everyone". Especially because everyone who're happy right now won't suddenly get a bunch of scummy apps sideloaded and Apple Pay and browser replaced. Also, I don't think they're all developers. One sure doesn't have to be a developer to wish for something their phone cannot do for purely non-technical reasons.
quitit 4y ago
>You'll simply pick Safari, never sideload an app, and pay with Apple Pay. We can coexist. This isn't even slightly realistic. It's a mistake to believe that these changes won't have run on consequences for developers. This isn't an outcome where you can have your cake and eat it too. It's not like everything will stay the same, except now developers have a bunch of extra freedoms. That exhibits no ability to think even one-step ahead of what these changes will bring about. We already know two dominating outcomes of these changes: 1. the path of least resistance for companies/developers (driven by cost), 2. Evasion of unpopular app store rules that solely exist to protect consumers from nefarious predatory apps (driven by profit). For example (1) your idea of a user being able to have control over their device is naive. Users won't have a reasonable choice to not side-load/use a 3rd party app store when the app is required by their employer, or insurance company, or bank, or medical/insurance provider, or state services. These will come about naturally because it's the easy way of getting around app store procedures, quality control, limitations. I.E. It'll cost less to produce these apps, so they will come out naturally from economic factors even before simplicity/laziness/frustration with app store operators are considered. For example (2), We already see how technology is being abused to closely monitor employees, customers and students to the point of unreasonableness. These will now extend into ones phone, when previously such apps weren't possible due to being forbidden by the various app stores. Imagine insurance companies requiring the user to have an app installed so they can negate your insurance on an AI-driven whim: if it detects a medical condition (such as visiting an abortion or sexual health clinic, or the detection of AF through the accelerometers), or if the user drives too fast, or visits dangerous areas/countries, or conducts any kind of risky activity that AI can accumulate from text messages, location history and on device sensors. The sky is the limit, and the idea that you'd just change insurance company is naive: they'll all do it, and they'll price their products so you don't actually have a choice. However we don't even need to peer into the future to see what happens if the reins are taken off, we saw how app testing certificates were abused to trick users into installing privacy evading/tracking apps. It's so naive to pretend that this isn't going to happen now, especially if all it takes is a click on a website. Side note: We have these new changes, but we don't have the corresponding consumer protections, nor any realistic way of enforcing them even if we did. There is no equivalent authority to regulate apps. It's like the bad old days where anyone can make and sell a medication, we'll need the app-store equivalent to the European Medicines Agency. And to think, people were worried about AirTags. Keep your phone close and trust no ones app suggestions, as now the phone can be effortlessly turned into a keylogger, an audio + visual listening bug, a live location tracker and any app can trivially scrape the phones contents: photos, contacts, credit cards the list of possibilities are endless, because by design smart phones were made to be carried around, contain more sensors and personal information and rely on protection bits provided by the various app store so apps wouldn't have trivial click-through access to protected silos of information. (Why do we know this will be a problem? Because it was already a problem.) So now we get to see this all unfold, as if it wasn't completely predictable.
nuker 4y ago
> And even if you're a die hard fan of closed computing, nothing bad will happen. Just a concerned user. Wrong. All websites will work in Chrome only, with whatever features Chrome has added. One Browser for all. All apps that feed on user data will move from under App Store to sideload/alt stores, to escape Apple privacy restrictions. To start with.

by fleddr 4y ago

capableweb 4y ago

> And even if you're a die hard fan of closed computing, nothing bad will happen. You'll simply pick Safari, never sideload an app, and pay with Apple Pay. We can coexist. This is the important point. Just like with decentralized VS centralized debate, starting out with one of them, decides if you can even have the other one. If you have a decentralized foundation (like HTTP), you can always add centralized entities on top, if that's favorable (like Twitter). But the other way is not true, you can't build decentralized things on a centralized foundation. If you have open computing on mobile devices, you can always opt-in to just stay within one ecosystem without being hurt by the openness. But the other way around is not true.

n8cpdx 4y ago
This is naive and assumes that there aren’t bigger, badder actors to deal with - Facebook, Google, and others can and will abuse their position. This will make the iPhone worse for everyone, especially if chrome manages a dominant position and developers can stop supporting safari. It will probably make my Mac worse, too. I still haven’t heard a single good reason why people who want sideloading can’t just use Android. iPhone isn’t even close to dominant in Europe. Hands. Off. My. iPhone.
- smoldesu 4y ago
  Google and Facebook are subject to legislation as well. If Apple worked with lawmakers to set good privacy precedents for these companies, then you might have an argument. Instead, all we proved is that private corporations feel no obligation to play nice with their competitors, so now our legislators have to fix it for us. > Hands. Off. My. iPhone. You don't own a damn thing. Only Apple (and evidently, governments) makes the choices on "your" iPhone.
- capableweb 4y ago
  > This is naive and assumes that there aren’t bigger, badder actors to deal with - Facebook, Google, and others can and will abuse their position. This will make the iPhone worse for everyone, especially if chrome manages a dominant position and developers can stop supporting safari. It will probably make my Mac worse, too. That's why we have regulation, which is quickly ("quick" in terms of legislation at least) coming now. If the only reason people use Safari today instead of another browser, is because they are forced to use Safari, even if there is a better one, isn't that kind of messed up in the first place? How would the openness make your Mac worse?! You think your Mac is worse today because you can install any applications you want? You think your Mac would become better if Apple disabled application installation outside of the App Store? > I still haven’t heard a single good reason why people who want sideloading can’t just use Android. iPhone isn’t even close to dominant in Europe. I have a iPhone, and I'd like to be able to use whatever application I want on it. I'd also like to be able to develop applications on it, but my desktop is Windows and Arch Linux, so today I can't. I love the Apple hardware, but I hate the UI and that I'm not able to even open it up like a normal USB device to transfer files. The UX of Apple stuff is really horrible (even if you buy into the whole ecosystem), but the hardware is very nice. So I'd like to be able to finally own the device I buy from Apple.
  - dwaite 4y ago
    > If the only reason people use Safari today instead of another browser, is because they are forced to use Safari, even if there is a better one, isn't that kind of messed up in the first place? The vast majority of people generally don't think a browser is 'better' outside of the chrome - tab functions, bookmark syncing, password management, etc. IMHO when people complain about Safari, it is usually web developers who wish they could block MobileSafari and just mandate everyone use Chrome. I've certainly seen developers do that for desktop Safari (most notably Google).
    - capableweb 4y ago
      I think you missed the core of my argument there. Again, if the only reason people are using your browser is because they are forced to, you're doing something wrong. Just because Chrome or Firefox could use their own rendering engine, doesn't mean the majority of iPhone users would switch to it. People who use Safari today would continue to use it even if Chrome/Firefox could switch their rendering engine.
- xdennis 4y ago
  > Hands. Off. My. iPhone. Nobody is forcing you to sideload anything. The way I see it, you enjoy a walled garden where many people are competing to provide you with apps. But they have to follow Apple's directives. The EU is also such a walled garden where companies have to follow the rules. In essence, nobody is forcing anybody. If you don't want Apple's control, buy an Android phone. If Apple doesn't like the EU's control, it shouldn't sell in the EU. So when you say "hands off my phone" I say "hands off MY phone". You don't like the EU's regulation. I don't like Apple's regulation. You might say that Apple should be able to do that because it is a private company. But that private company brought in more net sales in 2021 (366 billion) than my country's GDP (Romania, 288 billion). I have more choice in moving countries (26 other countries in the EU) than phone platforms (basically 2).
  - dwaite 4y ago
    > Nobody is forcing you to sideload anything. Yet. Facebook and Google were both previously caught using enterprise certificates on iOS to ship software to consumers outside the store, that would capture network traffic destined for other sites and information on what third party native applications were run. The problem a lot of iOS users have with offering side loading is that the store, for better or worse, is serving the role of a regulatory body saying things like 'you must get consent to track the user', or 'you must allow users to delete their account and any stored information'. Unfortunately, the EU does not appear to be planning to add regulations to protect user privacy, nor are they properly enforcing existing regulations like GDPR. They are really just moving power around to other large corporations - e.g. letting banks use NFC without paying Apple their 0.15% Apple Pay commission, or letting Facebook track the user in ways that Apple does not allow.
- jpambrun 4y ago
  Exactly, Hands. Off. My. iPhone, let me install what ever I want on my device.

n8cpdx 4y ago

What do you think the ratio of developers to users is? Coexisting with closed computing is buying an Android, not forcing open the gates with a battering ram. It’s incredibly naive to think opening the ecosystem won’t lead to abuse and a worse experience for everyone that doesn’t have a niche appreciation for browser engines.

drdaeman 4y ago
It's like a two-party system, when both parties are messed up, each in their own unique manner. One might be subjectively much better than another (subjectively = for a specific individual and their beliefs), but they still suck and you wish there would be someone else who'd not just have the good bits but also not have that stupid stance on the bad ones - again, for subjective "good" and "bad" of a particular individual. This is how it is with Android and iOS. They both suck, just differently. And there are people who are much more happy with iOS overall - it sucks less for them - they're not going to be happy with Android, even though openness is something they see as a good thing. So your solution is simply not working for them. I don't know how big this group is. If they're large enough to influence and impose a political will to pass this legislation - I'd guess, quite a lot of people. So I don't think it would be "worse experience for everyone". Especially because everyone who're happy right now won't suddenly get a bunch of scummy apps sideloaded and Apple Pay and browser replaced. Also, I don't think they're all developers. One sure doesn't have to be a developer to wish for something their phone cannot do for purely non-technical reasons.

quitit 4y ago

>You'll simply pick Safari, never sideload an app, and pay with Apple Pay. We can coexist. This isn't even slightly realistic. It's a mistake to believe that these changes won't have run on consequences for developers. This isn't an outcome where you can have your cake and eat it too. It's not like everything will stay the same, except now developers have a bunch of extra freedoms. That exhibits no ability to think even one-step ahead of what these changes will bring about. We already know two dominating outcomes of these changes: 1. the path of least resistance for companies/developers (driven by cost), 2. Evasion of unpopular app store rules that solely exist to protect consumers from nefarious predatory apps (driven by profit). For example (1) your idea of a user being able to have control over their device is naive. Users won't have a reasonable choice to not side-load/use a 3rd party app store when the app is required by their employer, or insurance company, or bank, or medical/insurance provider, or state services. These will come about naturally because it's the easy way of getting around app store procedures, quality control, limitations. I.E. It'll cost less to produce these apps, so they will come out naturally from economic factors even before simplicity/laziness/frustration with app store operators are considered. For example (2), We already see how technology is being abused to closely monitor employees, customers and students to the point of unreasonableness. These will now extend into ones phone, when previously such apps weren't possible due to being forbidden by the various app stores. Imagine insurance companies requiring the user to have an app installed so they can negate your insurance on an AI-driven whim: if it detects a medical condition (such as visiting an abortion or sexual health clinic, or the detection of AF through the accelerometers), or if the user drives too fast, or visits dangerous areas/countries, or conducts any kind of risky activity that AI can accumulate from text messages, location history and on device sensors. The sky is the limit, and the idea that you'd just change insurance company is naive: they'll all do it, and they'll price their products so you don't actually have a choice. However we don't even need to peer into the future to see what happens if the reins are taken off, we saw how app testing certificates were abused to trick users into installing privacy evading/tracking apps. It's so naive to pretend that this isn't going to happen now, especially if all it takes is a click on a website. Side note: We have these new changes, but we don't have the corresponding consumer protections, nor any realistic way of enforcing them even if we did. There is no equivalent authority to regulate apps. It's like the bad old days where anyone can make and sell a medication, we'll need the app-store equivalent to the European Medicines Agency. And to think, people were worried about AirTags. Keep your phone close and trust no ones app suggestions, as now the phone can be effortlessly turned into a keylogger, an audio + visual listening bug, a live location tracker and any app can trivially scrape the phones contents: photos, contacts, credit cards the list of possibilities are endless, because by design smart phones were made to be carried around, contain more sensors and personal information and rely on protection bits provided by the various app store so apps wouldn't have trivial click-through access to protected silos of information. (Why do we know this will be a problem? Because it was already a problem.) So now we get to see this all unfold, as if it wasn't completely predictable.

nuker 4y ago

> And even if you're a die hard fan of closed computing, nothing bad will happen. Just a concerned user. Wrong. All websites will work in Chrome only, with whatever features Chrome has added. One Browser for all. All apps that feed on user data will move from under App Store to sideload/alt stores, to escape Apple privacy restrictions. To start with.