12 ms·

It blows my mind how many people have bought into Apple's position on this. No, Apple restricting your freedom does not afford you greater security. You, as an

by bloppe 4y ago

It blows my mind how many people have bought into Apple's position on this. No, Apple restricting your freedom does not afford you greater security. You, as an adult, can choose not to install shady software. If you're not confident in your ability to tell shady from legit, just stick to the App Store. Don't demand that Apple treat the rest of us like children just because that's how you would like to be treated.

vlozko 4y ago
This is a very myopic view of what it’s like for the elderly and less tech savvy. Most aren’t capable of telling the difference and yet they constantly find themselves unknowingly getting scammed. I take it you’ve never had to clean out a horribly malware infested computer for a mother-in-law before?
- bloppe 4y ago
  While this is certainly a problem, I don't accept it as an argument for why we all have to be locked in the walled garden. Just add a system setting that controls the walls. Let people disable it if they want, and tell your mother-and-law to never ever disable it no matter what. If you're worried that they'll be tricked into disabling it, then they probably should not be in control of a bank account or anything else serious anyway. Anyway, this isn't really relevant to this regulation. People already get scammed on iPhones all the time. It's silly to think that anybody would be more vulnerable as a result of the DMA.
  - vlozko 4y ago
    What happens when installing Facebook requires this setting to be disabled because it's only installable with their own App Store and rampant with privacy intrusions? > People already get scammed on iPhones all the time. I disagree with this assertion. It's certainly far less than those getting scammed on Mac/PC. > It's silly to think that anybody would be more vulnerable as a result of the DMA. There's a failure in imagination here in all the ways that companies will take advantage of this to the severe detriment of users, often with the user being clueless on how much they're compromised. What's undeniable is that this regulation dramatically increases the surface area of ways to scam people.
    - bloppe 4y ago
      There are so many other ways to deal with this danger that don't involve relinquishing everybody's freedom to a monopoly. You could just make the setting unchangeable except by an administrator account, then don't give your vulnerable relative the admin password. Boom, they're in the exact same position as they were before this regulation, but I don't have to deal with Apple's extortion if I don't want to. Win win!
      - plandis 4y ago
        The thing that’s missing is that Facebook can now exploit people whereas previously Apple was forcing Facebook to act just slightly less shitty. If Facebook can bypass Apple then there is no leverage. Apple was enforcing some baseline of good behavior that developers no longer need to abide by. Apples subscription management is actually pretty consumer friendly, for example and I have to imagine plenty of companies are chomping at the bit to extract more money from shady tactics once they are no longer forced into decent behavior
        MichaelCollins 4y ago
        Facebook in the EU should be regulated by the EU, not Apple. The EU should not be delegating this regulation to an American corporation.
        bun_at_work 4y ago
        Then why was it up to Apple? The EU failed to regulate the pervasive tracking of Facebook on devices, Apple did what they could to protect their users.
      - runako 4y ago
        > setting unchangeable except by an administrator account Part of the regulation appears to require third-party apps to have the ability to use any APIs. Therefore, any malicious app will be able to present system dialogs that are (possibly) indistinguishable from official OS dialogs. This seems bad.
  - HatchedLake721 4y ago
    > tell your mother-and-law to never ever disable it no matter what Just like banks telling people they would never ask for their password/social security number. Works very well! /s
  - plandis 4y ago
    > I don't accept it as an argument for why we all have to be locked in the walled garden. You’re not, even today. You can of course choose not to use an iPhone
  - l33t2328 4y ago
    You don’t have to be locked into a walled garden! You don’t have to buy an iPhone.
    - unity1001 4y ago
      Yep. They can just buy Android and get locked into another walled garden.
- unity1001 4y ago
  The argument betrays itself: How will that elderly and less tech savvy find and install another app store into their iPhone. If they are not tech savvy enough to be able to decide something is scammy, they are not tech savvy enough to install a freaking app store in their phone.
  - d12bb 4y ago
    To get this great new shiny "game" just follow these steps to install it on your iPhone: ..
MichaelCollins 4y ago
The apparent desire for paternalism unnerves me. Any time people are free to choose who they associate with, they run the risk of coming across bad actors who would scam them or worse. In most domains of life, we have special protections for the senile elderly and children but everybody else is given freedom and subsequently expected to develop and exercise a sense of good judgement, because freedom is more important than security. But in the specific case of iphones, the argument is made that giving rational level-headed adults the freedom to associate with the software they wish would imperil children and the elderly, and you don't have to look far to find somebody arguing that that risk outweigh any other consideration. If this belief were likely to be limited to iphones I wouldn't really care, I'd simply not buy an iphone. But I fear special-case exceptions don't stay that way forever, and I fear Apple's style of paternalism (which is very profitable) will inevitably spread and become difficult if not impossible to avoid unless stomped out soon.
- dane-pgp 4y ago
  I absolutely agree with you, but here's a hypothesis worth considering: What if we're building a society that is so complicated that it just isn't feasible for individuals to make informed decisions about important matters any more? Societies have long accepted that things like medical treatments have to be prescribed by an expert, and some societies have even decided that healthy people can be forced to have medical treatments even against their will (i.e. vaccines). My hope is that we are just in a temporary phase, where society has learnt how to transmit information freely but not how to reliably transmit trust. If the reputations of software developers and medical practitioners could be established without corporate or government monopolies, then society might get past this local minimum and into a more stable state.
  - MichaelCollins 4y ago
    > What if we're building a society that is so complicated that it just isn't feasible for individuals to make informed decisions about important matters any more? Then we should apply the regulator brakes immediately, as hard as possible. If the threat new technology poses to society is so great as that, then we should regulate those technologies, possibly to the point of strangulation. Ancient Roman urban legend: An inventor came to the Emperor to show off a new material, unbreakable glass. He showed the Emperor a glass chalice and threw it to the floor. Instead of shattering it merely bent, and the inventor bent it back into shape with a hammer. The emperor was very impressed, then ordered for the inventor to be killed. Unshatterable glass was very nice, but it wasn't worth the social and economic disruption it might cause. I am not that Roman emperor. What I support is the regulation of business practices, not technology itself. But if you (and Ted Kaczynski, for he has argued the same) are right and the threat to society comes from the technology, then we can regulate the technology as well.
lotsofpulp 4y ago
>You, as an adult, can choose not to install shady software. For whatever reason, my dad cannot choose to not install shady software. Keeping him in iOS land is the only thing that has worked at keeping his devices clean.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
nemothekid 4y ago
>You, as an adult, can choose not to install shady software. For some reason every Linux user assumes everyone is as smart as they are and anyone who doesn't take the time to learn whatever esoteric config file to manage their DE is a child that can't tell left from right. Somehow the decade of directed scams and proliferation of malware and spyware isn't a problem and it's the developers "right" to be able to turn on your microphone and send that data to the cloud. When Facebook mandates that to install Instagram you must sideload it from the Facebook store and your entire's family's location is being tracked 24/7 I hope you will thank Zuckerberg for all the freedom hes giving you >Don't demand that Apple treat the rest of us like children just because that's how you would like to be treated. You could just not buy from Apple. I never understand how the anti-Apple crowd is convinced that Apple is run by Satan himself, but cannot compel themselves from buying Apple products.
- tlamponi 4y ago
  1. Who talked about Linux? 2. Who said spam isn't a problem or that this act allows or even enforce to circumvent the strong privacy rules that the EU (not Apple) actually guarantees for their biggest single market in the world? News flash: you can combat spam and scams while keeping open and exchangeable basic infrastructure, without any walled garden. Otherwise, following your logic Apple would need to ban access to protocols like IP instantly, as those can be used to transport spam and exchange openly information. People rather argue that the safety excuse is BS and people do not require being a Linux expert to detect spam, that they can also get over the landline or in person knocking on the door, for that one needs common sense and some not completely bad education.
  - nemothekid 4y ago
    I don't know why you've decided to focus on confidence scams, it's like you are intentionally trying to dodge my point. >Otherwise, following your logic Apple would need to ban access to protocols like IP instantly But they _did_. The browser engine is another walled garden. HTTP is one of those "open protocols" that has been rife with spyware, but for some reasons people don't tend to cry as loudly when Apple banned third party cookies. >that they can also get over the landline or in person knocking on the door, for that one needs common sense and some not completely bad education. I enjoy looking forward to you educating people not install Instagram. I don't know why people continue to assume the bad guys are blackhats or script kiddies. The company that stands to benefit the most from this is the company that lost nearly 400 billion dollars when Apple decided to curb fingerprinting. That is 400 billion reasons they have to push you to sideload. You really think you can just tell people to exercise "common sense" against someone who stands to gain $400B? Again, to circle back to Linux, you are displaying the same kind of hubris that developers have when it comes to software. It's a refusal to have any empathy for actual users - telling people not to install Instagram from the FB App Store because it's "common sense" is asinine. FB will spend $1B convincing your doctor that the FB App Store will cure cancer; how is a normal person supposed to combat that with "common sense".
pieter_mj 4y ago
All true. At the same time it will undeniably increase opportunities for criminal actors. For a technical user, usually not a problem (like it is currently the case on Android). For an ordinary user caught in the hype of the day, not so much.
- bena 4y ago
  I would argue it's a problem for a technical user as well. It's just a problem. Defenders have to win every time. Attackers only have to win once. That gives the attackers the advantage. And it may not even directly be your fault. All you need is a flaw in any communications system that allows privilege escalation and code execution. Then you can be compromised by someone who just happens to be in the same room. Now while this is true even now. It's even worse when every user can download and install whatever sketchware promises to mine dogecoins while the phone is idle for guaranteed returns of 100%. Because every other phone becomes a potential attack vector.
drstewart 4y ago
> You, as an adult, can choose not to install shady software But apparently you, as an adult, can't choose to not buy Apple if you don't like their policies? Strange.
wbl 4y ago
Remember bonzai buddy?
wokwokwok 4y ago
Ah, it's so easy to write something like this, but... > No, Apple restricting your freedom does not afford you greater security. No, Apple restricting your freedom does not afford you greater security. You don't know anything about me. How can you possibly make the call on what makes me secure or not? Not being able to install malware... that is by definition more secure than being able to install malware. > If you're not confident in your ability to tell shady from legit, just stick to the App Store. No, you believe that other people who are not confident in their ability to tell shady from legit, can just stick to the App Store. ...but that's not true for some people. Some people make bad decisions. Lots of people make bad decisions. What you believe other people should be capable of, is your choice, but it's (clearly) wrong for a certain cohort of people. > Don't demand that Apple treat the rest of us like children just because that's how you would like to be treated. You may feel like you're being treated like a child because you are being prevented from doing what you consider to be something you should be entitled to do. ...but, other people feel differently. You don't represent everyone. Your opinions are not shared by everyone. > It blows my mind ...that other people have opinions. I know, it's astonishing. Just because you (and I) personally will be positively affected by this change, doesn't mean everyone one will be. Does the positive benefit to us few outweigh the negative benefit to many others? I don't know. I'm pretty worried about it. I think it's gonna to end up with a lot of bad things, for a lot of people, who aren't good at making decisions, especially when it relates to computers and other technical stuff.
- unity1001 4y ago
  > Not being able to install malware Not being able to drive is also much safer than being able to drive. Not having internet access is also much safer than having it. Not getting out is also much safer than getting out.
  - wokwokwok 4y ago
    You’re right; but that doesn’t make me wrong. Not being able to install malware is safer. Maybe you should be able to, as an adult, decide to install it, or, as you say, decide to drive dangerously. …but you can’t argue you aren’t safer if you choose not to drive (or install malware). Driving is dangerous. It’s safer to not be able to drive. The argument the parent post made was that you are no safer not being able to drive. Which is wrong. Categorically.
RcouF1uZ4gsC 4y ago
It blows my mind how many people have bought into EU's position on this. No, the EU restricting Apple's freedom does not afford you greater choice. You, as an adult, can choose not to buy Apple hardware. If you're not confident in your ability to do that, just stick to Android. Don't demand that EU treat the rest of us like children just because that's how you would like to be treated.
rad_gruchalski 4y ago
> You, as an adult, can choose not to install shady software. You assume that everyone is as smart as you in figuring out which software is "shady software". Majority of the population have no clue and if the path to complying with this regulation is to drop the stance on security (regardless of existing issues with default security, as implemented today) further, well... good luck. Me and you maybe will not get tricked into installing some "shady app" but I'm looking forward to reading more about how people got hacked via their phone because they have installed "a bank app" from "appstore x" thinking that it was from "appstore y".
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
dmitrygr 4y ago
> You, as an adult, can choose not to install shady software. You clearly do not play tech support to elderly family members, or have kids
elzbardico 4y ago
You can just keep using an android phone. I, for one, don't want to waste my time being IT support for my entire family. That's the whole reason most of us prefer the walled garden of iOS. I don't care if it is as powerful a computer as a server from some 15 years ago, I WANT to treat it like an appliance, a friggin consumer device, I want to standardize it across my home and have some peace of mind. If I want to hack, I have plenty of other devices at home or that I can buy that are far more adequate to this end.
- anhner 4y ago
  You can just keep using an old cell phone. See? I can do it too.
pb7 4y ago
If you don't like a company's offerings then buy something else.
Volker_W 4y ago
Do you think Apps should not be Sandboxed on iOS?
SnowProblem 4y ago
Apple famously went with gorilla glass over plastic for the original iPhone, despite glass being more breakable, because when it would break users tended to blame themselves rather Apple. Plastic on the other hand scratched just from everyday use and users would have blamed Apple for that cheap design. Perceived fault matters. Interestingly, I think this can be used to argue either side.
quest88 4y ago
Do you not remember the prevalence of viruses in the early 2000s? And how malware used clever UX to get people to install things?

by bloppe 4y ago

vlozko 4y ago

This is a very myopic view of what it’s like for the elderly and less tech savvy. Most aren’t capable of telling the difference and yet they constantly find themselves unknowingly getting scammed. I take it you’ve never had to clean out a horribly malware infested computer for a mother-in-law before?

bloppe 4y ago
While this is certainly a problem, I don't accept it as an argument for why we all have to be locked in the walled garden. Just add a system setting that controls the walls. Let people disable it if they want, and tell your mother-and-law to never ever disable it no matter what. If you're worried that they'll be tricked into disabling it, then they probably should not be in control of a bank account or anything else serious anyway. Anyway, this isn't really relevant to this regulation. People already get scammed on iPhones all the time. It's silly to think that anybody would be more vulnerable as a result of the DMA.
- vlozko 4y ago
  What happens when installing Facebook requires this setting to be disabled because it's only installable with their own App Store and rampant with privacy intrusions? > People already get scammed on iPhones all the time. I disagree with this assertion. It's certainly far less than those getting scammed on Mac/PC. > It's silly to think that anybody would be more vulnerable as a result of the DMA. There's a failure in imagination here in all the ways that companies will take advantage of this to the severe detriment of users, often with the user being clueless on how much they're compromised. What's undeniable is that this regulation dramatically increases the surface area of ways to scam people.
  - bloppe 4y ago
    There are so many other ways to deal with this danger that don't involve relinquishing everybody's freedom to a monopoly. You could just make the setting unchangeable except by an administrator account, then don't give your vulnerable relative the admin password. Boom, they're in the exact same position as they were before this regulation, but I don't have to deal with Apple's extortion if I don't want to. Win win!
    - plandis 4y ago
      The thing that’s missing is that Facebook can now exploit people whereas previously Apple was forcing Facebook to act just slightly less shitty. If Facebook can bypass Apple then there is no leverage. Apple was enforcing some baseline of good behavior that developers no longer need to abide by. Apples subscription management is actually pretty consumer friendly, for example and I have to imagine plenty of companies are chomping at the bit to extract more money from shady tactics once they are no longer forced into decent behavior
      - MichaelCollins 4y ago
        Facebook in the EU should be regulated by the EU, not Apple. The EU should not be delegating this regulation to an American corporation.
        bun_at_work 4y ago
        Then why was it up to Apple? The EU failed to regulate the pervasive tracking of Facebook on devices, Apple did what they could to protect their users.
    - runako 4y ago
      > setting unchangeable except by an administrator account Part of the regulation appears to require third-party apps to have the ability to use any APIs. Therefore, any malicious app will be able to present system dialogs that are (possibly) indistinguishable from official OS dialogs. This seems bad.
- HatchedLake721 4y ago
  > tell your mother-and-law to never ever disable it no matter what Just like banks telling people they would never ask for their password/social security number. Works very well! /s
- plandis 4y ago
  > I don't accept it as an argument for why we all have to be locked in the walled garden. You’re not, even today. You can of course choose not to use an iPhone
- l33t2328 4y ago
  You don’t have to be locked into a walled garden! You don’t have to buy an iPhone.
  - unity1001 4y ago
    Yep. They can just buy Android and get locked into another walled garden.
unity1001 4y ago
The argument betrays itself: How will that elderly and less tech savvy find and install another app store into their iPhone. If they are not tech savvy enough to be able to decide something is scammy, they are not tech savvy enough to install a freaking app store in their phone.
- d12bb 4y ago
  To get this great new shiny "game" just follow these steps to install it on your iPhone: ..

MichaelCollins 4y ago

The apparent desire for paternalism unnerves me. Any time people are free to choose who they associate with, they run the risk of coming across bad actors who would scam them or worse. In most domains of life, we have special protections for the senile elderly and children but everybody else is given freedom and subsequently expected to develop and exercise a sense of good judgement, because freedom is more important than security. But in the specific case of iphones, the argument is made that giving rational level-headed adults the freedom to associate with the software they wish would imperil children and the elderly, and you don't have to look far to find somebody arguing that that risk outweigh any other consideration. If this belief were likely to be limited to iphones I wouldn't really care, I'd simply not buy an iphone. But I fear special-case exceptions don't stay that way forever, and I fear Apple's style of paternalism (which is very profitable) will inevitably spread and become difficult if not impossible to avoid unless stomped out soon.

dane-pgp 4y ago
I absolutely agree with you, but here's a hypothesis worth considering: What if we're building a society that is so complicated that it just isn't feasible for individuals to make informed decisions about important matters any more? Societies have long accepted that things like medical treatments have to be prescribed by an expert, and some societies have even decided that healthy people can be forced to have medical treatments even against their will (i.e. vaccines). My hope is that we are just in a temporary phase, where society has learnt how to transmit information freely but not how to reliably transmit trust. If the reputations of software developers and medical practitioners could be established without corporate or government monopolies, then society might get past this local minimum and into a more stable state.
- MichaelCollins 4y ago
  > What if we're building a society that is so complicated that it just isn't feasible for individuals to make informed decisions about important matters any more? Then we should apply the regulator brakes immediately, as hard as possible. If the threat new technology poses to society is so great as that, then we should regulate those technologies, possibly to the point of strangulation. Ancient Roman urban legend: An inventor came to the Emperor to show off a new material, unbreakable glass. He showed the Emperor a glass chalice and threw it to the floor. Instead of shattering it merely bent, and the inventor bent it back into shape with a hammer. The emperor was very impressed, then ordered for the inventor to be killed. Unshatterable glass was very nice, but it wasn't worth the social and economic disruption it might cause. I am not that Roman emperor. What I support is the regulation of business practices, not technology itself. But if you (and Ted Kaczynski, for he has argued the same) are right and the threat to society comes from the technology, then we can regulate the technology as well.

lotsofpulp 4y ago

>You, as an adult, can choose not to install shady software. For whatever reason, my dad cannot choose to not install shady software. Keeping him in iOS land is the only thing that has worked at keeping his devices clean.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

nemothekid 4y ago

>You, as an adult, can choose not to install shady software. For some reason every Linux user assumes everyone is as smart as they are and anyone who doesn't take the time to learn whatever esoteric config file to manage their DE is a child that can't tell left from right. Somehow the decade of directed scams and proliferation of malware and spyware isn't a problem and it's the developers "right" to be able to turn on your microphone and send that data to the cloud. When Facebook mandates that to install Instagram you must sideload it from the Facebook store and your entire's family's location is being tracked 24/7 I hope you will thank Zuckerberg for all the freedom hes giving you >Don't demand that Apple treat the rest of us like children just because that's how you would like to be treated. You could just not buy from Apple. I never understand how the anti-Apple crowd is convinced that Apple is run by Satan himself, but cannot compel themselves from buying Apple products.

tlamponi 4y ago
1. Who talked about Linux? 2. Who said spam isn't a problem or that this act allows or even enforce to circumvent the strong privacy rules that the EU (not Apple) actually guarantees for their biggest single market in the world? News flash: you can combat spam and scams while keeping open and exchangeable basic infrastructure, without any walled garden. Otherwise, following your logic Apple would need to ban access to protocols like IP instantly, as those can be used to transport spam and exchange openly information. People rather argue that the safety excuse is BS and people do not require being a Linux expert to detect spam, that they can also get over the landline or in person knocking on the door, for that one needs common sense and some not completely bad education.
- nemothekid 4y ago
  I don't know why you've decided to focus on confidence scams, it's like you are intentionally trying to dodge my point. >Otherwise, following your logic Apple would need to ban access to protocols like IP instantly But they _did_. The browser engine is another walled garden. HTTP is one of those "open protocols" that has been rife with spyware, but for some reasons people don't tend to cry as loudly when Apple banned third party cookies. >that they can also get over the landline or in person knocking on the door, for that one needs common sense and some not completely bad education. I enjoy looking forward to you educating people not install Instagram. I don't know why people continue to assume the bad guys are blackhats or script kiddies. The company that stands to benefit the most from this is the company that lost nearly 400 billion dollars when Apple decided to curb fingerprinting. That is 400 billion reasons they have to push you to sideload. You really think you can just tell people to exercise "common sense" against someone who stands to gain $400B? Again, to circle back to Linux, you are displaying the same kind of hubris that developers have when it comes to software. It's a refusal to have any empathy for actual users - telling people not to install Instagram from the FB App Store because it's "common sense" is asinine. FB will spend $1B convincing your doctor that the FB App Store will cure cancer; how is a normal person supposed to combat that with "common sense".

pieter_mj 4y ago

All true. At the same time it will undeniably increase opportunities for criminal actors. For a technical user, usually not a problem (like it is currently the case on Android). For an ordinary user caught in the hype of the day, not so much.

bena 4y ago
I would argue it's a problem for a technical user as well. It's just a problem. Defenders have to win every time. Attackers only have to win once. That gives the attackers the advantage. And it may not even directly be your fault. All you need is a flaw in any communications system that allows privilege escalation and code execution. Then you can be compromised by someone who just happens to be in the same room. Now while this is true even now. It's even worse when every user can download and install whatever sketchware promises to mine dogecoins while the phone is idle for guaranteed returns of 100%. Because every other phone becomes a potential attack vector.

drstewart 4y ago

> You, as an adult, can choose not to install shady software But apparently you, as an adult, can't choose to not buy Apple if you don't like their policies? Strange.

wbl 4y ago

Remember bonzai buddy?

wokwokwok 4y ago

Ah, it's so easy to write something like this, but... > No, Apple restricting your freedom does not afford you greater security. No, Apple restricting your freedom does not afford you greater security. You don't know anything about me. How can you possibly make the call on what makes me secure or not? Not being able to install malware... that is by definition more secure than being able to install malware. > If you're not confident in your ability to tell shady from legit, just stick to the App Store. No, you believe that other people who are not confident in their ability to tell shady from legit, can just stick to the App Store. ...but that's not true for some people. Some people make bad decisions. Lots of people make bad decisions. What you believe other people should be capable of, is your choice, but it's (clearly) wrong for a certain cohort of people. > Don't demand that Apple treat the rest of us like children just because that's how you would like to be treated. You may feel like you're being treated like a child because you are being prevented from doing what you consider to be something you should be entitled to do. ...but, other people feel differently. You don't represent everyone. Your opinions are not shared by everyone. > It blows my mind ...that other people have opinions. I know, it's astonishing. Just because you (and I) personally will be positively affected by this change, doesn't mean everyone one will be. Does the positive benefit to us few outweigh the negative benefit to many others? I don't know. I'm pretty worried about it. I think it's gonna to end up with a lot of bad things, for a lot of people, who aren't good at making decisions, especially when it relates to computers and other technical stuff.

unity1001 4y ago
> Not being able to install malware Not being able to drive is also much safer than being able to drive. Not having internet access is also much safer than having it. Not getting out is also much safer than getting out.
- wokwokwok 4y ago
  You’re right; but that doesn’t make me wrong. Not being able to install malware is safer. Maybe you should be able to, as an adult, decide to install it, or, as you say, decide to drive dangerously. …but you can’t argue you aren’t safer if you choose not to drive (or install malware). Driving is dangerous. It’s safer to not be able to drive. The argument the parent post made was that you are no safer not being able to drive. Which is wrong. Categorically.

RcouF1uZ4gsC 4y ago

It blows my mind how many people have bought into EU's position on this. No, the EU restricting Apple's freedom does not afford you greater choice. You, as an adult, can choose not to buy Apple hardware. If you're not confident in your ability to do that, just stick to Android. Don't demand that EU treat the rest of us like children just because that's how you would like to be treated.

rad_gruchalski 4y ago

> You, as an adult, can choose not to install shady software. You assume that everyone is as smart as you in figuring out which software is "shady software". Majority of the population have no clue and if the path to complying with this regulation is to drop the stance on security (regardless of existing issues with default security, as implemented today) further, well... good luck. Me and you maybe will not get tricked into installing some "shady app" but I'm looking forward to reading more about how people got hacked via their phone because they have installed "a bank app" from "appstore x" thinking that it was from "appstore y".

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

dmitrygr 4y ago

> You, as an adult, can choose not to install shady software. You clearly do not play tech support to elderly family members, or have kids

elzbardico 4y ago

You can just keep using an android phone. I, for one, don't want to waste my time being IT support for my entire family. That's the whole reason most of us prefer the walled garden of iOS. I don't care if it is as powerful a computer as a server from some 15 years ago, I WANT to treat it like an appliance, a friggin consumer device, I want to standardize it across my home and have some peace of mind. If I want to hack, I have plenty of other devices at home or that I can buy that are far more adequate to this end.

anhner 4y ago
You can just keep using an old cell phone. See? I can do it too.

pb7 4y ago

If you don't like a company's offerings then buy something else.

Volker_W 4y ago

Do you think Apps should not be Sandboxed on iOS?

SnowProblem 4y ago

Apple famously went with gorilla glass over plastic for the original iPhone, despite glass being more breakable, because when it would break users tended to blame themselves rather Apple. Plastic on the other hand scratched just from everyday use and users would have blamed Apple for that cheap design. Perceived fault matters. Interestingly, I think this can be used to argue either side.

quest88 4y ago

Do you not remember the prevalence of viruses in the early 2000s? And how malware used clever UX to get people to install things?