3 ms·

> 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 othe

> 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
  > So the solution is to let another big tech be the gatekeeper? No, the solution is explicitly stopping big tech from being a gatekeeper. Apple can continue to sell their "premium" App Store with amazing security benefits and brilliant moderation, while advanced users can toggle the "freedom mode" setting or whatever and go get IPA files off Github. It's not some pie-in-the-sky concept, it's how software distribution was meant to be done. > 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. Good, then don't use any app outside the App Store. Apple will do their job to keep you perfectly safe from all those nasty, moneygrubbing developers who disagree with their rightful tax. You can remain loyal, but their monopoly literally cannot persist in a just world. > As for the right to install/manage software, I view it similarly to what the FDA is doing now [...] Is such a view considered insanity? Not until you start telling me that I don't have a right to eat food that the FDA hasn't approved for me. If you only eat FDA-certified food, good for you. It's a service the government provides free-of-charge, and some people like it. If you try shutting down your next-door neighbor's kid for selling non-certified lemonade, their dad is going to give you a black eye. The problem is, we quite literally lack an institution large enough to give Apple a black eye. There are governments fining them millions of dollars and they shake it off like Godzilla worrying about some pests. Their attitude towards democratic leadership is appalling, and deserves to be brought to heel. > 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? It's absolutely mind-blowing that you will say that in defense of a company that consists of "some devs [that] just want to make more money". Yeah, maybe they do want a chance at competing against the largest software company in the world. Is that a big ask? Maybe I want to install FOSS apps that Apple won't let people publish to the app store. You don't have to, but you can't argue that I shouldn't be able to. Apple doesn't have the right to decide which browser I use when I pay for their hardware. They shouldn't make you pay $99/year to temporarily install a nerfed app to your iPhone. It's one of the most oppressive rackets in modern internet history, and I'll gladly refute any arguments against that claim.
mostlysimilar 4y ago
> Well, Apple could just... let people install other stores. The only way I would be okay with this is if Apple required any app you provide in an alternative store must be available in the official App Store as well. The last thing I want is for Meta to come along and mandate you install their 3rd party app store in order to use Instagram. I don't even want this app on my phone but I use it to keep in touch with friends that just won't use anything else. It's not _necessary_ but it's nearly necessary. I would never install an app from a Meta-controlled app store, and the first thing they would do if Apple was forced to allow it is launch their own and take Instagram etc. off the official Apple App Store.
- smoldesu 4y ago
  > the first thing they would do if Apple was forced to allow it is launch their own and take Instagram etc. off the official Apple App Store. How do you know? First off, Google allows this on Android, and Meta hasn't made their own store on there. Second off, their revenue from Instagram is largely supplanted by an advertising business that Apple happily supports. They have no reason to remove it from the App Store. Third off, stopping businesses from making anticonsumer decisions isn't an argument against abolishing anticonsumer practices. We wouldn't be in this situation in the first place if Apple didn't unfairly use their position of power to impose a tax on all payment processing that happens on their operating system. Again, nobody arguing for sideloading is forcing you to install anything. If Meta leaves the App Store and stops updating the version of Instagram everyone has installed, that's their loss. If Apple feels threatened by other services eating their lunch, they can always take a lesson out of Microsoft's playbook and start adding more first-party ads to iOS.
  - ummonk 4y ago
    Apple’s rules against apps tracking users were a massive blow to Meta’s ads business, so they’d certainly take the opportunity to avoid Apple’s restrictions if they could.
    - smoldesu 4y ago

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
> So the solution is to let another big tech be the gatekeeper? No, the solution is explicitly stopping big tech from being a gatekeeper. Apple can continue to sell their "premium" App Store with amazing security benefits and brilliant moderation, while advanced users can toggle the "freedom mode" setting or whatever and go get IPA files off Github. It's not some pie-in-the-sky concept, it's how software distribution was meant to be done. > 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. Good, then don't use any app outside the App Store. Apple will do their job to keep you perfectly safe from all those nasty, moneygrubbing developers who disagree with their rightful tax. You can remain loyal, but their monopoly literally cannot persist in a just world. > As for the right to install/manage software, I view it similarly to what the FDA is doing now [...] Is such a view considered insanity? Not until you start telling me that I don't have a right to eat food that the FDA hasn't approved for me. If you only eat FDA-certified food, good for you. It's a service the government provides free-of-charge, and some people like it. If you try shutting down your next-door neighbor's kid for selling non-certified lemonade, their dad is going to give you a black eye. The problem is, we quite literally lack an institution large enough to give Apple a black eye. There are governments fining them millions of dollars and they shake it off like Godzilla worrying about some pests. Their attitude towards democratic leadership is appalling, and deserves to be brought to heel. > 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? It's absolutely mind-blowing that you will say that in defense of a company that consists of "some devs [that] just want to make more money". Yeah, maybe they do want a chance at competing against the largest software company in the world. Is that a big ask? Maybe I want to install FOSS apps that Apple won't let people publish to the app store. You don't have to, but you can't argue that I shouldn't be able to. Apple doesn't have the right to decide which browser I use when I pay for their hardware. They shouldn't make you pay $99/year to temporarily install a nerfed app to your iPhone. It's one of the most oppressive rackets in modern internet history, and I'll gladly refute any arguments against that claim.

mostlysimilar 4y ago

> Well, Apple could just... let people install other stores. The only way I would be okay with this is if Apple required any app you provide in an alternative store must be available in the official App Store as well. The last thing I want is for Meta to come along and mandate you install their 3rd party app store in order to use Instagram. I don't even want this app on my phone but I use it to keep in touch with friends that just won't use anything else. It's not _necessary_ but it's nearly necessary. I would never install an app from a Meta-controlled app store, and the first thing they would do if Apple was forced to allow it is launch their own and take Instagram etc. off the official Apple App Store.

smoldesu 4y ago
> the first thing they would do if Apple was forced to allow it is launch their own and take Instagram etc. off the official Apple App Store. How do you know? First off, Google allows this on Android, and Meta hasn't made their own store on there. Second off, their revenue from Instagram is largely supplanted by an advertising business that Apple happily supports. They have no reason to remove it from the App Store. Third off, stopping businesses from making anticonsumer decisions isn't an argument against abolishing anticonsumer practices. We wouldn't be in this situation in the first place if Apple didn't unfairly use their position of power to impose a tax on all payment processing that happens on their operating system. Again, nobody arguing for sideloading is forcing you to install anything. If Meta leaves the App Store and stops updating the version of Instagram everyone has installed, that's their loss. If Apple feels threatened by other services eating their lunch, they can always take a lesson out of Microsoft's playbook and start adding more first-party ads to iOS.
- ummonk 4y ago
  Apple’s rules against apps tracking users were a massive blow to Meta’s ads business, so they’d certainly take the opportunity to avoid Apple’s restrictions if they could.
  - smoldesu 4y ago