4 ms·

I think the App Store model is probably still currently the best model for the average user who doesn’t know how to secure a computing device. I know we may be

I think the App Store model is probably still currently the best model for the average user who doesn’t know how to secure a computing device. I know we may be heading towards a future where we’re totally locked down, but what alternative do we have? I’m always hesitant to install software on my desktop because I never know if there’s a trojan hidden in the software. I’m a relatively technical user, but I have no idea how I would determine if the software was safe. So at the moment I’m content to let Apple handle it. Note, this is coming from a pro-Apple user. Conversely, it would be interesting if an independent pro-privacy company (such as DuckDuckGo?) were to make a configurable smartphone for the more technical crowd that was both secure and allowed side-loading. I’d like to see such a product offered as an alternative to the offerings from the big tech companies.

smoldesu 4y ago
> I know we may be heading towards a future where we’re totally locked down, but what alternative do we have? Well, Apple could just... let people install other stores. The App Store will still exist for new users and security-paranoid users, but the right to install/manage software needs to be a universal right when you buy hardware from someone. Arguing the opposite is almost insanity. > I’m a relatively technical user, but I have no idea how I would determine if the software was safe. Do what F-Droid does, compare the downloaded binary against a first-party checksum for the release (usually provided by Github). Then you can tell if the software you're loading has been tampered before it runs, simple as that. This is what the App Store does internally (along with cert-checking) to provide your "premium" security experience. It's largely designed to be distributed. > Conversely, it would be interesting if an independent pro-privacy company (such as DuckDuckGo?) were to make a configurable smartphone for the more technical crowd that was both secure and allowed side-loading. That's not the point either. The iPhone is fully capable of loading alternative App Stores and even alternate OSes. Apple is the only one stopping the user from doing these things. The fact that Apple explicitly does not allow people to distribute software unless they profit off has drawn incredible antitrust scrutiny. All of this can and will be alleviated with Apple giving up their iron grip on the 30% tax. What alternative do we have?
- riatin 4y ago
  I agree with your point about the 30% tax being somewhat unfair... however, I think your average user would honestly just prefer Apple be the gatekeeper to their phone for them, and not have to worry about which App Stores to trust and which not to. Apple does not have to be in the business of making phones for the (extreme~!) technical + security conscious crowd.
- kjreact 4y ago
  > Well, Apple could just... let people install other stores. So the solution is to let another big tech be the gatekeeper? If a customer thinks Google is a better gatekeeper then they should stick with Android. Nothing wrong with that. > Do what F-Droid does, compare the downloaded binary against a first-party checksum for the release (usually provided by Github). But my issue is not that something has been tampered between source and binary, but that I don’t have the expertise to look through the source and verify that no trojan has been added by one of the contributors. A checksum doesn’t solve this problem. As for the right to install/manage software, I view it similarly to what the FDA is doing now to protect me from products that are dangerous. I don’t have the knowledge to be able to vet all chemicals that are dangerous to me so I’m happy to let them handle it. Is such a view considered insanity? > All of this can and will be alleviated with Apple giving up their iron grip on the 30% tax. In the end is all this talk about rights and freedoms really just a veil for the fact that some devs just want to make more money?
  - mattnewton 4y ago
    > So the solution is to let another big tech be the gatekeeper? If a customer thinks Google is a better gatekeeper then they should stick with Android. Nothing wrong with that. Nobody is going to be a green bubble for access to the play store. This isn't textbook forced bundling[0], but it sure feels close. [0] https://www.ftc.gov/advice-guidance/competition-guidance/guide-antitrust-laws/single-firm-conduct/tying-sale-two-products https://www.ftc.gov/advice-guidance/competition-guidance/gui... > As for the right to install/manage software, I view it similarly to what the FDA is doing now to protect me from products that are dangerous. I don’t have the knowledge to be able to vet all chemicals that are dangerous to me so I’m happy to let them handle it. Is such a view considered insanity? You're fine to think so, but why can't I opt out? > In the end is all this talk about rights and freedoms really just a veil for the fact that some devs just want to make more money? There are whole classes of applications where the margins don't really make sense because of apple's cut. I don't know why they need to extract so much rent?

smoldesu 4y ago

> I know we may be heading towards a future where we’re totally locked down, but what alternative do we have? Well, Apple could just... let people install other stores. The App Store will still exist for new users and security-paranoid users, but the right to install/manage software needs to be a universal right when you buy hardware from someone. Arguing the opposite is almost insanity. > I’m a relatively technical user, but I have no idea how I would determine if the software was safe. Do what F-Droid does, compare the downloaded binary against a first-party checksum for the release (usually provided by Github). Then you can tell if the software you're loading has been tampered before it runs, simple as that. This is what the App Store does internally (along with cert-checking) to provide your "premium" security experience. It's largely designed to be distributed. > Conversely, it would be interesting if an independent pro-privacy company (such as DuckDuckGo?) were to make a configurable smartphone for the more technical crowd that was both secure and allowed side-loading. That's not the point either. The iPhone is fully capable of loading alternative App Stores and even alternate OSes. Apple is the only one stopping the user from doing these things. The fact that Apple explicitly does not allow people to distribute software unless they profit off has drawn incredible antitrust scrutiny. All of this can and will be alleviated with Apple giving up their iron grip on the 30% tax. What alternative do we have?

riatin 4y ago
I agree with your point about the 30% tax being somewhat unfair... however, I think your average user would honestly just prefer Apple be the gatekeeper to their phone for them, and not have to worry about which App Stores to trust and which not to. Apple does not have to be in the business of making phones for the (extreme~!) technical + security conscious crowd.
kjreact 4y ago
> Well, Apple could just... let people install other stores. So the solution is to let another big tech be the gatekeeper? If a customer thinks Google is a better gatekeeper then they should stick with Android. Nothing wrong with that. > Do what F-Droid does, compare the downloaded binary against a first-party checksum for the release (usually provided by Github). But my issue is not that something has been tampered between source and binary, but that I don’t have the expertise to look through the source and verify that no trojan has been added by one of the contributors. A checksum doesn’t solve this problem. As for the right to install/manage software, I view it similarly to what the FDA is doing now to protect me from products that are dangerous. I don’t have the knowledge to be able to vet all chemicals that are dangerous to me so I’m happy to let them handle it. Is such a view considered insanity? > All of this can and will be alleviated with Apple giving up their iron grip on the 30% tax. In the end is all this talk about rights and freedoms really just a veil for the fact that some devs just want to make more money?
- mattnewton 4y ago
  > So the solution is to let another big tech be the gatekeeper? If a customer thinks Google is a better gatekeeper then they should stick with Android. Nothing wrong with that. Nobody is going to be a green bubble for access to the play store. This isn't textbook forced bundling[0], but it sure feels close. [0] https://www.ftc.gov/advice-guidance/competition-guidance/guide-antitrust-laws/single-firm-conduct/tying-sale-two-products https://www.ftc.gov/advice-guidance/competition-guidance/gui... > As for the right to install/manage software, I view it similarly to what the FDA is doing now to protect me from products that are dangerous. I don’t have the knowledge to be able to vet all chemicals that are dangerous to me so I’m happy to let them handle it. Is such a view considered insanity? You're fine to think so, but why can't I opt out? > In the end is all this talk about rights and freedoms really just a veil for the fact that some devs just want to make more money? There are whole classes of applications where the margins don't really make sense because of apple's cut. I don't know why they need to extract so much rent?