5 ms·

The difference is that not being able to develop hobby apps is a side effect of that policy, not that the policy's main aim is to prevent hobby apps from being

by outime 4y ago

The difference is that not being able to develop hobby apps is a side effect of that policy, not that the policy's main aim is to prevent hobby apps from being developed.

piuantiderp 4y ago
We don't know either way. The reality is they're being hindered
smoldesu 4y ago
The side-effect is in the eye of the beholder. Apple claims they lock down the App Store for security, and a convenient "side effect" is that their stranglehold on platform transactions makes them upwards of $80 billion annually. From the perspective of the shareholder, it's obvious that Apple's motivations are more driven more by profits than ensuring universal security. Regulators worldwide agree!
- cortesoft 4y ago
  The original comment didn’t say that Apple was doing it for security, just that they were doing it so people couldn’t sideload apps easily. I think you are both right. Apple wants to make sure all app sales happen through their App Store so they get a cut, and they are willing to make hobby apps difficult to load in order to make that happen. They don’t care about stopping hobby apps, but they care about making sure they get a cut of all sales.
- x0x0 4y ago
  It's not obvious at all. All of us who still have to help people in our lives -- particularly elderly parents -- are very grateful for a platform where the users are not expected to be sysadmins. Which they will do quite badly. We have a 25+ year history of trying to get most people to not install random spyware/crapware/viruses on their computers, and it's fair to say the results are a complete and total failure. Except for ios and sometimes android. Which is not to justify Apple's attempt to tax every dollar that flows through their platform, but something can be two things at once.
  - smoldesu 4y ago
    iOS isn't impervious to malware either. Pegasus was deployed effortlessly to tens of thousands of iOS devices, and the App Store had nothing to do with it. Meanwhile, Apple still green-lights exploitative gambling and lootbox services as long as they're promised a cut of the loot. There is merit in pursuing a more secure future for computing, but there is zero merit in doing so alone.
    - bananapub 4y ago
      > iOS isn't impervious to malware either. fortunately no one made this hyperbolic claim. > Pegasus was deployed effortlessly to tens of thousands of iOS devices, I can't stop a G20 nation or the people they pay from hacking my mum's phone to steal from her bank account, but I can offer to buy her an iPhone and have her be immune to nearly all real world attacks. it's of course fine if you don't care about the security difference (or think Google does nearly as good a job with their first party phones), but not sure why you're making hyperbolic posts arguing against some strawman?
      - smoldesu 4y ago
        [flagged]
        dang 4y ago
        Could you please stop posting unsubstantive comments and flamebait? You've unfortunately been doing it repeatedly. It's not what this site is for, and destroys what it is for. If you wouldn't mind reviewing https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and taking the intended spirit of the site more to heart, we'd be grateful.
varispeed 4y ago
Policies are often designed so that their main goal is seen as a side effect. They probably can't say explicitly that they don't want sideloading, as this could turn an eyebrow of a regulator, but making it more difficult to create hobby apps, which achieves the same effect does not explicitly show an intent and may keep regulator at bay.
marcosdumay 4y ago
Talking about "side effects" in systematic policies is meaningless. There may or may not exist someone that wants those, and you are not inside everyone's brains to decide for yourself.
JohnFen 4y ago
Sure, it's a difference, but not one that is actually meaningful to anyone outside of Apple. An affected customer doesn't care about why the policy exists (nor should they have to). The effects are the same regardless.
- robertlagrant 4y ago
  It's just a comment on the title of the posting. The title assumes an intention that's possibly incorrect. If intention doesn't matter, then why is it in the title?
  - horsawlarway 4y ago
    Actions speak louder than words. The actions Apple has taken prohibit using self-written apps without paying Apple a relatively large yearly fee (and in many cases, also going through pointless store review). So at best - Apple does not care about hobby apps (written by owner, for owner) because they have taken no actions to mitigate this impact if it truly is just a side effect and not intended. At worst - Apple is actively hostile to this usage and the policy is working as intended. That distinction is mostly moot from the view of a user outside of the internal discussions at Apple regarding that policy. The impact of the policy clearly discourages hobby app usage. Because the policy exists, a reasonable interpretation is that Apple does not want you developing hobby apps.
  - JohnFen 4y ago
    I'm not the author, so I don't know. But I would say the title is intended to be provocative and, in terms of what this looks like from the outside, isn't an unreasonable supposition. But, ultimately, it's not an important point either way.
    - robertlagrant 4y ago
      I think intention is important, and in many ways more important than the end result, and it's worth highlighting potential mischaracterisation. If it's not important to you fair enough, but I don't understand the point of you both contributing to the discussion as well as saying the discussion isn't worth having.

by outime 4y ago

The difference is that not being able to develop hobby apps is a side effect of that policy, not that the policy's main aim is to prevent hobby apps from being developed.

piuantiderp 4y ago

We don't know either way. The reality is they're being hindered

smoldesu 4y ago

The side-effect is in the eye of the beholder. Apple claims they lock down the App Store for security, and a convenient "side effect" is that their stranglehold on platform transactions makes them upwards of $80 billion annually. From the perspective of the shareholder, it's obvious that Apple's motivations are more driven more by profits than ensuring universal security. Regulators worldwide agree!

cortesoft 4y ago
The original comment didn’t say that Apple was doing it for security, just that they were doing it so people couldn’t sideload apps easily. I think you are both right. Apple wants to make sure all app sales happen through their App Store so they get a cut, and they are willing to make hobby apps difficult to load in order to make that happen. They don’t care about stopping hobby apps, but they care about making sure they get a cut of all sales.
x0x0 4y ago
It's not obvious at all. All of us who still have to help people in our lives -- particularly elderly parents -- are very grateful for a platform where the users are not expected to be sysadmins. Which they will do quite badly. We have a 25+ year history of trying to get most people to not install random spyware/crapware/viruses on their computers, and it's fair to say the results are a complete and total failure. Except for ios and sometimes android. Which is not to justify Apple's attempt to tax every dollar that flows through their platform, but something can be two things at once.
- smoldesu 4y ago
  iOS isn't impervious to malware either. Pegasus was deployed effortlessly to tens of thousands of iOS devices, and the App Store had nothing to do with it. Meanwhile, Apple still green-lights exploitative gambling and lootbox services as long as they're promised a cut of the loot. There is merit in pursuing a more secure future for computing, but there is zero merit in doing so alone.
  - bananapub 4y ago
    > iOS isn't impervious to malware either. fortunately no one made this hyperbolic claim. > Pegasus was deployed effortlessly to tens of thousands of iOS devices, I can't stop a G20 nation or the people they pay from hacking my mum's phone to steal from her bank account, but I can offer to buy her an iPhone and have her be immune to nearly all real world attacks. it's of course fine if you don't care about the security difference (or think Google does nearly as good a job with their first party phones), but not sure why you're making hyperbolic posts arguing against some strawman?
    - smoldesu 4y ago
      [flagged]
      - dang 4y ago
        Could you please stop posting unsubstantive comments and flamebait? You've unfortunately been doing it repeatedly. It's not what this site is for, and destroys what it is for. If you wouldn't mind reviewing https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and taking the intended spirit of the site more to heart, we'd be grateful.

varispeed 4y ago

Policies are often designed so that their main goal is seen as a side effect. They probably can't say explicitly that they don't want sideloading, as this could turn an eyebrow of a regulator, but making it more difficult to create hobby apps, which achieves the same effect does not explicitly show an intent and may keep regulator at bay.

marcosdumay 4y ago

Talking about "side effects" in systematic policies is meaningless. There may or may not exist someone that wants those, and you are not inside everyone's brains to decide for yourself.

JohnFen 4y ago

Sure, it's a difference, but not one that is actually meaningful to anyone outside of Apple. An affected customer doesn't care about why the policy exists (nor should they have to). The effects are the same regardless.

robertlagrant 4y ago
It's just a comment on the title of the posting. The title assumes an intention that's possibly incorrect. If intention doesn't matter, then why is it in the title?
- horsawlarway 4y ago
  Actions speak louder than words. The actions Apple has taken prohibit using self-written apps without paying Apple a relatively large yearly fee (and in many cases, also going through pointless store review). So at best - Apple does not care about hobby apps (written by owner, for owner) because they have taken no actions to mitigate this impact if it truly is just a side effect and not intended. At worst - Apple is actively hostile to this usage and the policy is working as intended. That distinction is mostly moot from the view of a user outside of the internal discussions at Apple regarding that policy. The impact of the policy clearly discourages hobby app usage. Because the policy exists, a reasonable interpretation is that Apple does not want you developing hobby apps.
- JohnFen 4y ago
  I'm not the author, so I don't know. But I would say the title is intended to be provocative and, in terms of what this looks like from the outside, isn't an unreasonable supposition. But, ultimately, it's not an important point either way.
  - robertlagrant 4y ago
    I think intention is important, and in many ways more important than the end result, and it's worth highlighting potential mischaracterisation. If it's not important to you fair enough, but I don't understand the point of you both contributing to the discussion as well as saying the discussion isn't worth having.