6 ms·

It is understandable why Apple wants to keep its current grip on iOS indefinitely. What I don't understand is why some people defend it, on this very forum! On

It is understandable why Apple wants to keep its current grip on iOS indefinitely. What I don't understand is why some people defend it, on this very forum! One commenter simultaneously defended gay marriages - "if you don't like gay marriages, don't get married to gays" - and defended the Apple's monopoly - "I like that there is only one Appstore and developers won't force me to sideload".

andersa 3y ago
Likely for the same reasons people defend billionaires that are actively doing everything that can to shift more wealth away from them.
larme 3y ago
Lesser of two evils principle maybe? I defend apple in this one appstore topic not because I think apple is good, but just better than google and facebook. Of course the longterm solution is to get better legalization on privacy protection etc. But before that, I really prefer apple as a proxy between me and google/facebook/etc.
- Andrew_nenakhov 3y ago
  If you like Apple's policies, just don't sideload and install everything from their official AppStore. Nothing will change for you then. You can do it on MacBooks as well.
  - theshrike79 3y ago
    When this goes through, you can be 100% sure there will be a Meta-only iOS store along with a Google iOS store and all their apps will move there. After that if you want to use apps to access any Google or Meta service, you'll need to get it from their store - that doesn't have any pesky limitations on user profiling or stupid guidelines for privacy.
    - Apocryphon 3y ago
      I think the threat of rival app stores is highly overrated: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33978081 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33978081 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30808926 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30808926 I don't think they have the product gumption, nor do users have the patience, to deal with multiple app stores. They'll just end up abandoning those apps, at least on iOS. Also regulators will not be amused by other companies forcing users to use their own walled gardens if those gardens are going to be full on data-mining operations.
      - hightrix 3y ago
        > I think the threat of rival app stores is highly overrated Agreed. I also don't think Google or Facebook will make iOS stores. My real worry is that a malicious actor will create a side loadable store called "iGoogle Store" that is then pushed to non-technical people. I could easily see both young and old people falling for this. This "iGoogle Store" would then request Google login credentials and millions of accounts are compromised. I don't see why wanting a closed ecosystem is a choice people are so against. There is a great open option, I'd prefer the current closed option to remain completely closed.
        Apocryphon 3y ago
        That's a fair consideration, and I don't have an immediate answer to that. Except to say that Apple could have gotten behind the opening up of iOS themselves, retaining some measure of control and protecting their users: > Really, Apple could have headed off regulators at the pass if they had embraced the (semi-)opening of their platform themselves. Allow third party app stores but on their own terms, providing SDKs and APIs for creating your own iOS App Store with security checks baked in and mandating privacy protections built in. Sort of like a software services equivalent to Apple Authorized Service Providers and Apple Authorized Resellers. They would have then controlled this debate, and there would have been less room for the Epics of the world to complain about the platform being locked down. Not to mention users would benefit from greater choice. Imagine boutique third party app stores springing up devoted to specific interests and niches such as F-Droid, or promising better curation or quality. Companies who refuse to use the AppStoreKit that Apple so beneficently provided would then be seen as malefactors seeking to subject their users to lack of privacy and security, rather than Apple trying to uphold their 30% cut and restrictive behavior. Instead, Apple tried to control everything and not only did they expose themselves to regulation like this, they deal with customers annoyed at scammy apps on their own App Store, and third party devs crying foul at inconsistent policing. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32170848 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32170848 I mean, I think there's still time for them to try something like this. Embrace alternative app stores and building the infrastructure to enable them, rather than just throwing open the doors and letting the wolves swarm "because the EU made us do it." In fact I can see this scenario happening because the motivation would be to prove openness is inherently dangerous.
  - madeofpalk 3y ago
    I'm rather indifferent on the matter, but this doesn't quite hold true. It's possible (likely?) that a someone big - one who ordinary folk would go through the jumps for - would only publish their app via side loading (or alt app store) and use this to bypass some of the policy restrictions wrt privacy on the App Store. This then becomes a slippery slope and would act as a platform to allow other apps through. The tough part of "just don't side load" is when we have a somewhat contemptious relationship with some of the services you use, and they only offer their apps via alt methods. Worth noting that Epic Games couldn't get this to work for Fortnite (for a period they only offered Fortnite via a sideloaded apk), and I don't believe Facebook as tried this. There's also the finer details - if alt browse engines are allowed, will non-web browser apps start bundling and shipping their own browser engines (similar to the electron situation on desktop)?
    - easton 3y ago
      The only thing about this argument I don’t quite agree with is that can’t apple just continue to sandbox apps to heck and back even if they are sideloaded? Like, currently apps can’t get a unique identifier for a user without the user allowing tracking, I don’t see why that has to change because sideloading is a thing. Unless there’s an implicit “and also the apps need to be able to get root/super entitlements without user consent” in the law. The App Store was only ever a first line of defense against icky behavior.
      - madeofpalk 3y ago
        Yes, security should always be implemented by technical means by the platform. Those hoping that alt-app stores means a complete free for all will be disappointed. But many things just cannot be restricted just by technical means, and instead relies on policy, and the threat of Apple kicking you off the platform, to enforce restrictions. A trivial example is the review prompts. It's policy that you must use the standard iOS APIs to trigger (which limits the frequency it's shown to the user). An app technically could implement their own UI (and im sure some still slip through), and there's no real way to prevent this, but being against the rules carries risks.
  - frizlab 3y ago
    That’s stupid. Apps will just not be in the App Store and you’ll have to side load to be able to have them. Which we (at least I) explicitly don’t want to do. And explicitly and even more don’t want my computer illiterate entourage to do!
    - e44858 3y ago
      Android allows sideloading, yet most apps are still available in the Google play store.
    - Andrew_nenakhov 3y ago
      Currently, Apple apologists say, "just do your research and don't buy Apple's products if you don't like the rules". Likewise, you are free to not use the apps that aren't available on Appstore.
  - irrational 3y ago
    Why would anyone who wants to abuse me put anything on the official AppStore?
thebruce87m 3y ago
I don’t want something shittier that I will invariably have to learn about to remove from my families phones. It suits me fine if it doesn’t exist at all.
- Andrew_nenakhov 3y ago
  Just because optional sideloading might create a mild inconvenience for you, you support the abusive policy that creates a huge problem for millions of users.
  - thebruce87m 3y ago
    If we wanted sideloading we would have chosen a different phone. I looked at the market and chose the best phone for my needs.
  - shuckles 3y ago
    What’s a killer sideloaded app on Android that iPhone users suffer from not having? Fortnite? I’m looking for problems on the scale of millions of users.
    - Andrew_nenakhov 3y ago
      Signal or Telegram in China. All those opposition apps that Apple readily removed from Russian AppStore at Putin's behest.
      - shuckles 3y ago
        Oppressive governments aren’t going to force Apple to allow side loading, so this isn’t really a meaningful example.
        Andrew_nenakhov 3y ago
        You are moving the goalposts. You asked what are killer sideloaded apps that users suffer from not having, I gave you examples, you started deflecting. Oppressive governments are not interested in sideloading, quite the opposite - they very happy with Apple's policies so far, as Apple readily removes any app that the governments asks them to remove.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
dotnet00 3y ago
When it's a company you like and don't feel like you've been hurt by, it's very easy to not even realize the bizarre rationalizations you're applying. Only in hindsight does it become obvious.
savanaly 3y ago
It comes down to this: I support companies being free to sell the product they want and users being free to buy what they want. If Apple sells a phone that's locked down, a piece of junk, wonderful, or anything in between that's between them and their customers. It's not the government's role to step in and prevent those voluntary transactions IMO. I would allow exceptions for grievous bodily injury and so on in my outlook, but I don't think that applies here. Third party app developers don't have a right to use Apple's app store in whatever way they want. They have a right to sell things to customers on whatever terms the customers agree to and with whatever agreements they are able to make with other businesses like Apple.
- meroes 3y ago
  Yep. Say it again because this site pretends to not understand this
- stouset 3y ago
  Also, I'll add this: Of all the major and minor players in this space, Apple has by far taken the most user-centric, privacy-first, security-centric stance. And they have done so over and over and over again. Have they been perfect? Of course not. But every instance where they've lapsed, they've made geniune efforts to improve the situation. Are there ways they can still improve? Of course. But the direction has been clear and unambiguous. And as a result, they've earned my trust. This, in an environment where quite literally everyone else has repeatedly proven themselves untrustworthy.
- switch007 3y ago
  > I support companies being free to sell the product they want Do you support companies adding melamine to infant formula? Or is your actual position slightly more nuanced?
- sensanaty 3y ago
  > It's not the government's role to step in and prevent those voluntary transactions IMO I'm a EU citizen and I'm more than happy that they're taking on Apple for this. After all, they're doing business with EU citizens, why shouldn't the EU tell them to behave? If they don't like it, they can just stop selling in the EU, no one's gonna stop them there, but seeing as it's a money hungry megacorp hellbent on hoovering up every single penny that exists on this planet, that obviously isn't gonna happen, so they'll have to play by the EU's rules in that case.
irrational 3y ago
> What I don't understand is why some people defend it, Have you tried to understand it? It is pretty clear to me. People like not having to worry about malware, tracking, etc.
- kibwen 3y ago
  This is FUD. Sideloading has not resulted in any of those things on Android.
  - fostware 3y ago
    Not sure whether you're fishing for a response or that naive... Any number of security warnings for Android have come out specifically mentioning sideloading being a vector for malicious or invasive spyware. Much more than any curated store, and even then the historical track record isn't stellar.
natch 3y ago
Because the detractors never acknowledge the good reasons Apple has for locking down the platform.
evilduck 3y ago
> Apple's monopoly What monopoly?
shuckles 3y ago
There is no inconsistency in your examples when you reframe the second point as: if you don’t like the terms at which Apple sells you devices, don’t buy Apple devices.
plandis 3y ago
The issue I have is that apps I want to use currently are forced to adopt user positive features like how Apple handles subscriptions for apps (cancel any time, keep access until the existing subscription ends, cancel with a button click, etc…). If those apps all migrate away from the App Store so they can be more profit focused rather than user focused that could negatively effect me.

andersa 3y ago

Likely for the same reasons people defend billionaires that are actively doing everything that can to shift more wealth away from them.

larme 3y ago

Lesser of two evils principle maybe? I defend apple in this one appstore topic not because I think apple is good, but just better than google and facebook. Of course the longterm solution is to get better legalization on privacy protection etc. But before that, I really prefer apple as a proxy between me and google/facebook/etc.

Andrew_nenakhov 3y ago
If you like Apple's policies, just don't sideload and install everything from their official AppStore. Nothing will change for you then. You can do it on MacBooks as well.
- theshrike79 3y ago
  When this goes through, you can be 100% sure there will be a Meta-only iOS store along with a Google iOS store and all their apps will move there. After that if you want to use apps to access any Google or Meta service, you'll need to get it from their store - that doesn't have any pesky limitations on user profiling or stupid guidelines for privacy.
  - Apocryphon 3y ago
    I think the threat of rival app stores is highly overrated: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33978081 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33978081 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30808926 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30808926 I don't think they have the product gumption, nor do users have the patience, to deal with multiple app stores. They'll just end up abandoning those apps, at least on iOS. Also regulators will not be amused by other companies forcing users to use their own walled gardens if those gardens are going to be full on data-mining operations.
    - hightrix 3y ago
      > I think the threat of rival app stores is highly overrated Agreed. I also don't think Google or Facebook will make iOS stores. My real worry is that a malicious actor will create a side loadable store called "iGoogle Store" that is then pushed to non-technical people. I could easily see both young and old people falling for this. This "iGoogle Store" would then request Google login credentials and millions of accounts are compromised. I don't see why wanting a closed ecosystem is a choice people are so against. There is a great open option, I'd prefer the current closed option to remain completely closed.
      - Apocryphon 3y ago
        That's a fair consideration, and I don't have an immediate answer to that. Except to say that Apple could have gotten behind the opening up of iOS themselves, retaining some measure of control and protecting their users: > Really, Apple could have headed off regulators at the pass if they had embraced the (semi-)opening of their platform themselves. Allow third party app stores but on their own terms, providing SDKs and APIs for creating your own iOS App Store with security checks baked in and mandating privacy protections built in. Sort of like a software services equivalent to Apple Authorized Service Providers and Apple Authorized Resellers. They would have then controlled this debate, and there would have been less room for the Epics of the world to complain about the platform being locked down. Not to mention users would benefit from greater choice. Imagine boutique third party app stores springing up devoted to specific interests and niches such as F-Droid, or promising better curation or quality. Companies who refuse to use the AppStoreKit that Apple so beneficently provided would then be seen as malefactors seeking to subject their users to lack of privacy and security, rather than Apple trying to uphold their 30% cut and restrictive behavior. Instead, Apple tried to control everything and not only did they expose themselves to regulation like this, they deal with customers annoyed at scammy apps on their own App Store, and third party devs crying foul at inconsistent policing. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32170848 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32170848 I mean, I think there's still time for them to try something like this. Embrace alternative app stores and building the infrastructure to enable them, rather than just throwing open the doors and letting the wolves swarm "because the EU made us do it." In fact I can see this scenario happening because the motivation would be to prove openness is inherently dangerous.
- madeofpalk 3y ago
  I'm rather indifferent on the matter, but this doesn't quite hold true. It's possible (likely?) that a someone big - one who ordinary folk would go through the jumps for - would only publish their app via side loading (or alt app store) and use this to bypass some of the policy restrictions wrt privacy on the App Store. This then becomes a slippery slope and would act as a platform to allow other apps through. The tough part of "just don't side load" is when we have a somewhat contemptious relationship with some of the services you use, and they only offer their apps via alt methods. Worth noting that Epic Games couldn't get this to work for Fortnite (for a period they only offered Fortnite via a sideloaded apk), and I don't believe Facebook as tried this. There's also the finer details - if alt browse engines are allowed, will non-web browser apps start bundling and shipping their own browser engines (similar to the electron situation on desktop)?
  - easton 3y ago
    The only thing about this argument I don’t quite agree with is that can’t apple just continue to sandbox apps to heck and back even if they are sideloaded? Like, currently apps can’t get a unique identifier for a user without the user allowing tracking, I don’t see why that has to change because sideloading is a thing. Unless there’s an implicit “and also the apps need to be able to get root/super entitlements without user consent” in the law. The App Store was only ever a first line of defense against icky behavior.
    - madeofpalk 3y ago
      Yes, security should always be implemented by technical means by the platform. Those hoping that alt-app stores means a complete free for all will be disappointed. But many things just cannot be restricted just by technical means, and instead relies on policy, and the threat of Apple kicking you off the platform, to enforce restrictions. A trivial example is the review prompts. It's policy that you must use the standard iOS APIs to trigger (which limits the frequency it's shown to the user). An app technically could implement their own UI (and im sure some still slip through), and there's no real way to prevent this, but being against the rules carries risks.
- frizlab 3y ago
  That’s stupid. Apps will just not be in the App Store and you’ll have to side load to be able to have them. Which we (at least I) explicitly don’t want to do. And explicitly and even more don’t want my computer illiterate entourage to do!
  - e44858 3y ago
    Android allows sideloading, yet most apps are still available in the Google play store.
  - Andrew_nenakhov 3y ago
    Currently, Apple apologists say, "just do your research and don't buy Apple's products if you don't like the rules". Likewise, you are free to not use the apps that aren't available on Appstore.
- irrational 3y ago
  Why would anyone who wants to abuse me put anything on the official AppStore?

thebruce87m 3y ago

I don’t want something shittier that I will invariably have to learn about to remove from my families phones. It suits me fine if it doesn’t exist at all.

Andrew_nenakhov 3y ago
Just because optional sideloading might create a mild inconvenience for you, you support the abusive policy that creates a huge problem for millions of users.
- thebruce87m 3y ago
  If we wanted sideloading we would have chosen a different phone. I looked at the market and chose the best phone for my needs.
- shuckles 3y ago
  What’s a killer sideloaded app on Android that iPhone users suffer from not having? Fortnite? I’m looking for problems on the scale of millions of users.
  - Andrew_nenakhov 3y ago
    Signal or Telegram in China. All those opposition apps that Apple readily removed from Russian AppStore at Putin's behest.
    - shuckles 3y ago
      Oppressive governments aren’t going to force Apple to allow side loading, so this isn’t really a meaningful example.
      - Andrew_nenakhov 3y ago
        You are moving the goalposts. You asked what are killer sideloaded apps that users suffer from not having, I gave you examples, you started deflecting. Oppressive governments are not interested in sideloading, quite the opposite - they very happy with Apple's policies so far, as Apple readily removes any app that the governments asks them to remove.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

dotnet00 3y ago

When it's a company you like and don't feel like you've been hurt by, it's very easy to not even realize the bizarre rationalizations you're applying. Only in hindsight does it become obvious.

savanaly 3y ago

It comes down to this: I support companies being free to sell the product they want and users being free to buy what they want. If Apple sells a phone that's locked down, a piece of junk, wonderful, or anything in between that's between them and their customers. It's not the government's role to step in and prevent those voluntary transactions IMO. I would allow exceptions for grievous bodily injury and so on in my outlook, but I don't think that applies here. Third party app developers don't have a right to use Apple's app store in whatever way they want. They have a right to sell things to customers on whatever terms the customers agree to and with whatever agreements they are able to make with other businesses like Apple.

meroes 3y ago
Yep. Say it again because this site pretends to not understand this
stouset 3y ago
Also, I'll add this: Of all the major and minor players in this space, Apple has by far taken the most user-centric, privacy-first, security-centric stance. And they have done so over and over and over again. Have they been perfect? Of course not. But every instance where they've lapsed, they've made geniune efforts to improve the situation. Are there ways they can still improve? Of course. But the direction has been clear and unambiguous. And as a result, they've earned my trust. This, in an environment where quite literally everyone else has repeatedly proven themselves untrustworthy.
switch007 3y ago
> I support companies being free to sell the product they want Do you support companies adding melamine to infant formula? Or is your actual position slightly more nuanced?
sensanaty 3y ago
> It's not the government's role to step in and prevent those voluntary transactions IMO I'm a EU citizen and I'm more than happy that they're taking on Apple for this. After all, they're doing business with EU citizens, why shouldn't the EU tell them to behave? If they don't like it, they can just stop selling in the EU, no one's gonna stop them there, but seeing as it's a money hungry megacorp hellbent on hoovering up every single penny that exists on this planet, that obviously isn't gonna happen, so they'll have to play by the EU's rules in that case.

irrational 3y ago

> What I don't understand is why some people defend it, Have you tried to understand it? It is pretty clear to me. People like not having to worry about malware, tracking, etc.

kibwen 3y ago
This is FUD. Sideloading has not resulted in any of those things on Android.
- fostware 3y ago
  Not sure whether you're fishing for a response or that naive... Any number of security warnings for Android have come out specifically mentioning sideloading being a vector for malicious or invasive spyware. Much more than any curated store, and even then the historical track record isn't stellar.

natch 3y ago

Because the detractors never acknowledge the good reasons Apple has for locking down the platform.

evilduck 3y ago

> Apple's monopoly What monopoly?

shuckles 3y ago

There is no inconsistency in your examples when you reframe the second point as: if you don’t like the terms at which Apple sells you devices, don’t buy Apple devices.

plandis 3y ago

The issue I have is that apps I want to use currently are forced to adopt user positive features like how Apple handles subscriptions for apps (cancel any time, keep access until the existing subscription ends, cancel with a button click, etc…). If those apps all migrate away from the App Store so they can be more profit focused rather than user focused that could negatively effect me.