6 ms·
else not be allowed in the App Store, a stick apple is more than happy to wield
by rmorey 3y ago
else not be allowed in the App Store, a stick apple is more than happy to wield
- grishka 3y agoIt should be illegal for a device manufacturer to retain any kind of control over devices after sale. Some governments are finally realizing this. So no, this is not a viable solution in the long run. Besides, Android is a thing. I personally have never used an iPhone as my real phone precisely because of this — I can't install modded apps, I can't install pirated apps, etc etc. It's not okay to have to jailbreak the thing to make it usable.
- bithaze 3y ago> It's not okay to have to jailbreak the thing to make it usable. I guess we'll have to tell millions of users that their iPhones are all unusable, then. Imagine the shock!
- grishka 3y agoIt might not be as much of a problem in the US, but it is a real pain in the ass people have to contend with, for example, in Russia. I've seen it myself. Apple is enforcing US sanctions against some Russian companies, which means they can't have an iOS app. At all. I heard stories about how a sanctioned bank would load some kind of shadily signed copy of its app onto people's iPhones in branches. For Android, that same bank just hosts a self-updating apk on their website — with no intermediates to tamper with their app distribution. Besides, being able to install modified apps is an important leverage against companies that don't act in their users' best interest. This way you can still use their services, but do so on your own terms.
- l33t233372 3y agoThis sounds like a good thing; the sanctions are working as intended.
- grishka 3y agoDid sanctions really intend to affect regular people who have exactly zero say in the matter though?
- plorkyeran 3y agoThat is what sanctions do, so either no politician has ever thought about the implication of sanctions or it's an intended effect.
- grishka 3y agoThere's two possible explanations. 1. They don't think about these kinds of second-order effects. They see that this company is somehow involved with the government and that's it. Their electorate won't care about these kinds of details because they're "doing something" to supposedly stop the war sooner. 2. They think that Russians would somehow revolt against the government. This doesn't work — the Russian government lacks any meaningful feedback mechanisms. By protesting, you'd expose yourself to immense personal risks for no discernible effect. Unless you're a heavily armed private army heading straight for Moscow.
- l33t233372 3y agoI strongly disagree that these are the only 2 possible explanations. The first is clearly not true — these second order effects are well known and often discussed, and the fact that sanctions are used in circumstances when the population is not expected to revolt shows that the second one isn’t the only remaining reason to use sanctions.
- curt15 3y ago>This sounds like a good thing; the sanctions are working as intended. Whether the effect is "good" depends on if you think someone's device should serve its user or some government.
- l33t233372 3y agoWhat if I (like so many others) want my device manufacturer to retain some kind of control of my device after sale?
- grishka 3y agoYou will act as if app store is still the only way to install apps on your iPhone.
- l33t233372 3y agoIf you don’t like a product, just buy a different one.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- wruza 3y agoSo you and me have both worlds to choose from (not gonna reiterate pros/cons hundredth time). You are living in yours, but I have to lose mine. By me I mean all those people who chose Apple for what it is and ignore Android for what it is, with regards to what we’re talking about. You have no real problem, only intrusive ideology. Please relax and leave us alone. We’ll speak for ourselves when we feel wronged.
- grishka 3y agoAs an app developer, I do have a very real problem. I don't want Apple to impose their agenda on me and act like they own the relationship between me and my users. In particular, Apple should have no opinion on what kind of UGC my app contains if it's rated 18+. Apple should also stop protecting their own products by rejecting apps that cut into their market. But of course, Apple would do none of these things voluntarily, so that's where regulators need to step in. If you want your device to be controlled by Apple, keep installing apps exclusively from the app store when the sideloading inevitably comes. Just like you can already choose to do on macOS.
- plorkyeran 3y agoNo, you can't choose to only install apps exclusively from the app store on macOS because the macOS app store is a barren wasteland. The MAS makes it very clear that the only reason app developers put up with the iOS app store restrictions is because they have no choice.
- NekkoDroid 3y agoGoogle Play Store begs to differ
- grishka 3y agoGoogle Play's rules on things like UGC are much more relaxed to begin with.
- 3y ago
- pierat 3y agoI've argued before that when companies retain control of the device after the sale, that it should not be legally classified as a sale. It should be enforced as a rental. Either I own my property and control my property, or it's not my property. If not mine, whose is it? All we need to look is who controls it then. This is all first-sale doctrine stuff. And I don't believe any new laws need be made to enforce this.
- Dylan16807 3y agoThey didn't say not allowed on devices, they said not allowed in the app store. Your complaint is valid but completely off topic.
- realusername 3y agoUnless you are some big name that they can't afford to lose