3 ms·

> How exactly would allowing a third party operating system on the device negatively impact your user experience? I'm all for Apple allowing third party operat

> How exactly would allowing a third party operating system on the device negatively impact your user experience? I'm all for Apple allowing third party operating systems. If some world government wants to force Apple to allow users to install Debian, Android or whatever onto their iPhone hardware, that's great. No downsides. Write the referendum and I'll vote in favour. As for the more common refrain that developers should be allowed to distribute apps outside Apple's walled garden, that does negatively affect me in three ways: 1. Unless Apple is allowed to make side-loading at least as unfriendly as it is on Android, many apps I use today will stop being distributed through the App Store. Want the Gmail app? Download Play Store for iOS. Want Lightroom? Download Creative Cloud Store for iOS. And suddenly all of these apps are no longer subject to Apple's strict privacy/tracking policies. That sucks. 2. I provide tech help to a dozen family members. I can't control what they do. I've had enough of dealing with Windows XP machines with Comet Cursor and a dozen other bits of malware on them. These days I've moved the worst offenders to iPads and providing them with tech support is no longer a source of tension headaches. No fucking way I'm supporting anything that has even the slightest chance of kinking that armour. It doesn't matter what I say. These people will follow any instruction provided by Google or Epic to install whatever app they've heard about. 3. Maybe I want to develop my own device and I want to write libraries for others to write apps for the device. Why should I support governments forcing device makers to give those libraries away to others and not respect license terms? I'm all for people hacking into devices they own, but if I distribute something with a license, I want my license terms to be respected - just as someone releasing under AGPL wants that license respected.

wiseowise 3y ago
> 1. Unless Apple is allowed to make side-loading at least as unfriendly as it is on Android, many apps I use today will stop being distributed through the App Store. Want the Gmail app? Download Play Store for iOS. Want Lightroom? Download Creative Cloud Store for iOS. And suddenly all of these apps are no longer subject to Apple's strict privacy/tracking policies. That sucks. That’s a lot of speculation without any data behind it. We have the biggest OS in history of the world and what you’re describing is absolutely not the case there. One of the biggest game developers with arguably the most popular game at the time tried to push for it and eventually returned back with tail between its legs.
- simondotau 3y ago
  Epic had their tail between their legs because the law wasn't on their side. The whole point is that if the law is modified, and these aspects of Apple's operating systems are designed by legislation, Epic would prevail in court. And there's no reason to think Apple could make side-loading onerous, because Epic will complain to the courts about anything that stands in the way of a seamless install of the Epic Games Store on an iPhone. That's not equivalent to the status quo on Android.
mirsadm 3y ago
1. That hasn't happened on Android. It won't happen on iOS. 2. That's a you problem. Learn to say no. 3. You already have to adhere to lots of government regulations.
- simondotau 3y ago
  1. You are right that it probably won't happen if Apple is only required to make side-loading technically possible but not seamless. But somehow I doubt that if Governments force Apple to permit side-loading by law, entities like Epic won't repeatedly abuse the courts to ensure Apple makes side-loading as seamless as possible. This is OS design by legislation and court order. Therefore the analogy to Android is obviously absurd and irrelevant. 2. Your lack of empathy is noted. But thanks for acknowledging that what I described is a real problem. 3. There are government regulations, therefore there should be more government regulations. Is that an argument?

wiseowise 3y ago

> 1. Unless Apple is allowed to make side-loading at least as unfriendly as it is on Android, many apps I use today will stop being distributed through the App Store. Want the Gmail app? Download Play Store for iOS. Want Lightroom? Download Creative Cloud Store for iOS. And suddenly all of these apps are no longer subject to Apple's strict privacy/tracking policies. That sucks. That’s a lot of speculation without any data behind it. We have the biggest OS in history of the world and what you’re describing is absolutely not the case there. One of the biggest game developers with arguably the most popular game at the time tried to push for it and eventually returned back with tail between its legs.

simondotau 3y ago
Epic had their tail between their legs because the law wasn't on their side. The whole point is that if the law is modified, and these aspects of Apple's operating systems are designed by legislation, Epic would prevail in court. And there's no reason to think Apple could make side-loading onerous, because Epic will complain to the courts about anything that stands in the way of a seamless install of the Epic Games Store on an iPhone. That's not equivalent to the status quo on Android.

mirsadm 3y ago

1. That hasn't happened on Android. It won't happen on iOS. 2. That's a you problem. Learn to say no. 3. You already have to adhere to lots of government regulations.

simondotau 3y ago
1. You are right that it probably won't happen if Apple is only required to make side-loading technically possible but not seamless. But somehow I doubt that if Governments force Apple to permit side-loading by law, entities like Epic won't repeatedly abuse the courts to ensure Apple makes side-loading as seamless as possible. This is OS design by legislation and court order. Therefore the analogy to Android is obviously absurd and irrelevant. 2. Your lack of empathy is noted. But thanks for acknowledging that what I described is a real problem. 3. There are government regulations, therefore there should be more government regulations. Is that an argument?