3 ms·
I’m going to speak in terms of the iPhone because that is the device to which your comment refers, but the following could easily apply to any smart phone: A p
by isykt 3y ago
I’m going to speak in terms of the iPhone because that is the device to which your comment refers, but the following could easily apply to any smart phone:
A person’s iPhone is extremely personal. They spend hours using it. It is practically an extension of their body. Many people sleep next to them. Many people develop a form of arthritis in their thumbs, downward curving necks, eye strain using them. Most people are never more than a few feet from their iPhone, and that’s usually because the device has to be sometimes connected to a wall in order to continue functioning.
Is it any wonder, then, that some people have trepidations about forced changes to how that device functions? Is it a mystery the some people are concerned about how that will impact the development of the device going forward?
Whether you agree with their concerns or not — as I take it you don’t — I think it’s perfectly reasonable that a large contingent of users are skeptical of an outside governing body forcing the maker of a device they depend on to make substantial changes to its operating model.
You call it more user freedom, but more freedom to do what, exactly? What’s your pitch for those who are hesitant?
- EscapeFromNY 3y ago> You call it more user freedom, but more freedom to do what, exactly? What’s your pitch for those who are hesitant? Nothing will change for you if you don't want it to change. This is only an option for people who want additional functionality. Nobody is forcing freedom or change on you by adding one more hard-to-find option buried in a menu somewhere for people who really want it.
- isykt 3y ago> This is only an option for people who want additional functionality. The common concern is that critical software that users depend on will only be released in a way that circumvents the safety mechanisms that Apple employs to prevent the execution of malicious code. Is that fear unfounded? Even setting aside the malicious code concern, many users don’t want to have to track several different app stores to find functional software. What prevents this from becoming the case?
- realusername 3y ago> . Is that fear unfounded? Yes, either they have a strong sandbox model or they don't and the appstore won't help either way. > What prevents this from becoming the case? Same as in real life, you can buy products at different supermarkets...
- isykt 3y agoDo you prefer having to physically go to different stores to get the items you need?
- realusername 3y agoIf that avoids me paying a absurd markup because there's a supermarket monopoly, yes it's definitively preferable. Most generic stores have everything though.
- EscapeFromNY 3y agoThe official app store will surely have 99.9%+ market share, just like the Play Store does on Android. Not many companies will want to give up 99.9% of their total addressable market. And Google has the same sort of review process Apple does. Are there any examples of critical software that users depend on only being released in a way that circumvents Google's safety mechanisms?
- isykt 3y agoThe Google Play store does not have 99.9% market share on Android phones because the Play Store is not available in China. > Are there any examples of critical software that users depend on only being released in a way that circumvents Google's safety mechanisms? Chinese Android phones are riddled with spyware. https://gizmodo.com/android-xiamoi-oneplus-phones-personal-info-study-1850082989 https://gizmodo.com/android-xiamoi-oneplus-phones-personal-i...
- EscapeFromNY 3y ago
- bloody-crow 3y ago> Nothing will change for you if you don't want it to change. That's not true. There's always cost, even for a feature that you personally never use. Sideloading opens tons of new security attack vectors and dark patterns, that it's going to affect absolutely everybody eventually.