4 ms·
But people have a choice. They can choose Android, but they don’t, even though they know iPhones are locked down. By this point, you have to assume that the peo
by cmdli 3y ago
But people have a choice. They can choose Android, but they don’t, even though they know iPhones are locked down. By this point, you have to assume that the people who buy iPhones are okay with it. Apple doesn’t have a monopoly by any means.
- stri8ted 3y agoThis argument holds less weight, when you consider things like iMessages, where there are network effects and no cross-platform support. Also, there are a number of apps that are only available on IOS, due to its higher market share and greater user spend. So there is a high switching cost, which is a direct function of Apple's dominant market position.
- hamandcheese 3y agoI buy iPhones, but I'm not okay with it. Android has some of what I want, but a lot of what I don't. The market is not competitive enough to actually be able to vote with my feet/dollars. Options are give up control (choose Apple) or give up privacy (choose Google). That is not a choice consumers should be forced to make.
- martimarkov 3y agoSo we should allow random app stores and browsers and magically keep the privacy? Yeah 100% the other stores will not allow for private APIs and circumvent privacy protections and anti-tracking mechanisms. I would 100% believe Facebook on the App Store vs Facebook on the Meta store will be the same…
- ThatPlayer 3y agoPrivate APIs and anti-tracking mechanisms are part of the operating system, not apps. As long as Apple's services don't get those same access, neither does any other app from a 3rd party app store.
- idle_zealot 3y agoPart of Apple's anti-tracking requirements are non-technical and exist only as App Store policy. That's the part that opponents of this change are concerned about losing should they end up pressured into using another store. That said, there's not a whole lot an app can do to track you (without requesting special permission) that a random website you visit couldn't.
- Moldoteck 3y agoSo dont fk... install fb/meta apps? If these orgs want to screw ppl, ppl are free to not use them, they even can use them from a browser. So yeah, allow everything, maybe not by default, but let consumers du what they want with the device. If consumer want pristine experience, they will have it by default, if not, they can install what they want
- a-user-you-like 3y agoSo you’re advocating freedom … by coercion? This is immoral. Besides immoral, obviously tons of apps would leave the App Store for a different store making it a much crappier experience for folks that use those very popular apps.
- Moldoteck 3y agoyeah, that's exactly what happens on android! looks like you can have some nostradamus genes! Immoral is not owning a device when you bought it. Being able to sideload after passing some big warnings and red buttons is ok, just give me the option to do what i want with the device i've bought. This experience is default for macos, windows, android for decades and still, i haven't seen apps refusing being part of google store even if it cuts big part of profit (well i just remembered the dji app), but fb/insta/any other big player is still on google store People that don't want to sideload will not sideload, it's pure freedom
- hamandcheese 3y agoIf you use Facebook, then I do not believe that you care about your privacy. If you don't use Facebook, then it shouldn't matter if they move to a Sketchy App Store.
- gsich 3y agoMy guess is people don't know that.
- Moldoteck 3y agoIphone hardware is better, so is software support. Both will not be altered by allowing sideload