4 ms·

Part of Apple's selling point is a well-managed walled garden that keeps riff-raff out. Opening it up will introduce riff-raff. The well-to-do are okay paying m

by tabtab 3y ago

Part of Apple's selling point is a well-managed walled garden that keeps riff-raff out. Opening it up will introduce riff-raff. The well-to-do are okay paying more to have better guards.

SenAnder 3y ago
You are conflating allowing riff-raff into the walled garden, with allowing consumers out. That one can install anything on a linux system doesn't make the official repositories less safe.
- barelysapient 3y ago
  I don't think your analogy holds up. Take the iPhone. Its a lot more than a Linux system repository. Its hardware. Its software. And it's also regulated things, like health records, payments, radio emissions, and a host of other things. So you see, its nothing like a repository. Now, if EU said, "Hey Linux Repositories, you have to let these other parties include their code in your repository", well, that might be a better analogy.
  - wkat4242 3y ago
    > So you see, its nothing like a repository. Now, if EU said, "Hey Linux Repositories, you have to let these other parties include their code in your repository", well, that might be a better analogy. No it's more akin to allowing the user to add other repositories. Which every Linux distro already allows.
  - SenAnder 3y ago
    It would be a wildly incorrect analogy. The EU only wants Apple to allow sideloading, not to accept any code in their app store. And I fail to see the relevance that the iPhone "is a lot more". A linux system is also hardware, software, it has WiFi drivers producing radio emissions, it can and does store health records and payments, and performs far more regulated things, like nuclear simulations for energy and medicine [1]. How is this an argument in favor of corporate-locked devices? [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monte_Carlo_N-Particle_Transport_Code https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monte_Carlo_N-Particle_Transpo...
wkat4242 3y ago
It won't introduce riff-raff into their garden. It will give customers options to decide for themselves. Only if they explicitly want to. If they don't, nothing will change. Right now there are entire categories of apps which which there's nothing wrong except that Apple doesn't want to allow them. Like emulators and pornographic apps. This will allow consumers to decide for themselves.
- tabtab 3y ago
  > It will give customers options to decide for themselves. And because of this, more people will add dodgy apps that compromise the phone. > nothing wrong except that Apple doesn't want to allow them. Like emulators Emulators add risk of trojans running.

by tabtab 3y ago

Part of Apple's selling point is a well-managed walled garden that keeps riff-raff out. Opening it up will introduce riff-raff. The well-to-do are okay paying more to have better guards.

SenAnder 3y ago

You are conflating allowing riff-raff into the walled garden, with allowing consumers out. That one can install anything on a linux system doesn't make the official repositories less safe.

barelysapient 3y ago
I don't think your analogy holds up. Take the iPhone. Its a lot more than a Linux system repository. Its hardware. Its software. And it's also regulated things, like health records, payments, radio emissions, and a host of other things. So you see, its nothing like a repository. Now, if EU said, "Hey Linux Repositories, you have to let these other parties include their code in your repository", well, that might be a better analogy.
- wkat4242 3y ago
  > So you see, its nothing like a repository. Now, if EU said, "Hey Linux Repositories, you have to let these other parties include their code in your repository", well, that might be a better analogy. No it's more akin to allowing the user to add other repositories. Which every Linux distro already allows.
- SenAnder 3y ago
  It would be a wildly incorrect analogy. The EU only wants Apple to allow sideloading, not to accept any code in their app store. And I fail to see the relevance that the iPhone "is a lot more". A linux system is also hardware, software, it has WiFi drivers producing radio emissions, it can and does store health records and payments, and performs far more regulated things, like nuclear simulations for energy and medicine [1]. How is this an argument in favor of corporate-locked devices? [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monte_Carlo_N-Particle_Transport_Code https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monte_Carlo_N-Particle_Transpo...

wkat4242 3y ago

It won't introduce riff-raff into their garden. It will give customers options to decide for themselves. Only if they explicitly want to. If they don't, nothing will change. Right now there are entire categories of apps which which there's nothing wrong except that Apple doesn't want to allow them. Like emulators and pornographic apps. This will allow consumers to decide for themselves.

tabtab 3y ago
> It will give customers options to decide for themselves. And because of this, more people will add dodgy apps that compromise the phone. > nothing wrong except that Apple doesn't want to allow them. Like emulators Emulators add risk of trojans running.