6 ms·

https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/app-store-to-be-split-in-two-ahead-of-eu-iphone-sideloading-deadline.2416395/post-32855701 https://forums.macrumors.com/thr

https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/app-store-to-be-split-in-two-ahead-of-eu-iphone-sideloading-deadline.2416395/post-32855701 https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/app-store-to-be-split-i... Someone has enough knowledge of human brain to explain this form of life way of thinking?

dylan604 3y ago
Not really sure specifically, but the comments in that thread are comical. "Others apps will stay outside to avoid Apple review process. Bugs and deliberate surveillance will run rampant. " Yup, exactly, but...only to people that choose to actively use these other app stores. If these secondary app stores do not attempt to verify and defend against malicious apps, then they will hopefully be branded as such. For those that choose to continue using them, I have a very tiny violin here ready to play a song of sympathy.
- bb123 3y ago
  I do not relish the idea of having to download Facebook/Instagram/WhatsApp directly from a 3rd party store. For me Apple standing between sketchy devs like Zuck-co and my phone is a feature not a bug.
  - dylan604 3y ago
    If you see apps only appearing in 3rd party stores and not on the Apple store, then that would be a huge red flag. Hopefully, there will be someone looking to make a name for themselves that would download the binaries from each store it is available and test for any differences. Those looking to avoid the cut paid to Apple seem to get all of the attention, but it's these more nefarious things that scare the bejeebus out of me. I don't even use apps from Apple's store because of the shit devs pull. No way in hell would I use something unregulated
  - smoldesu 3y ago
    From United States v. American Tel. (1983): > The threat to competition that is claimed to be posed by AT&T in this industry is that, through the use of cross-subsidization and customer discrimination, it will use its power in the interexchange market to disadvantage competing electronic publishers. While the possibility of cross-subsidization is as remote here as it is with respect to other subjects considered herein, there is a real danger that AT&T will use its control of the interexchange network to undermine competing publishing ventures. Sounds familiar, I wonder how things ended for Ma Bell?
    - dylan604 3y ago
      > I wonder how things ended for Ma Bell? For a while, they were broken up into the baby bells. Then, one baby bell started buying up all of the other baby bells and renamed itself ATT. Clearly, that's a totally different company than AT&T. So, ultimately, nothing.
      - smoldesu 3y ago
        From a less misanthropic perspective, we avoided the immediate outcome of a direct monopoly and have an undeniably more robust telecommunications infrastructure because of it. If we get an AT&T-style placation out of Apple, I'd consider ourselves lucky.
      - abhibeckert 3y ago
        Ma Bell, at it's peak, was arguably biggest company in the entire world. The new comglomerate of "baby bells" isn't even the biggest Telco provider in the USA, let alone the biggest company in the USA... let alone the biggest in the world.
  - ThatPlayer 3y ago
    You can choose to let Apple stand between you by staying on Apple's App Store. If you don't get an app because Apple is blocking it from the App Store, isn't that working as intended? If you choose to ignore Apple's block and get the app elsewhere, then it sounds like Apple's barrier is a bug
    - huytersd 3y ago
      Not if Facebook, WhatsApp etc pull their apps from the App Store and only make it available from 3rd party sources.
      - smoldesu 3y ago
        That's a possibility right now, with or without iOS sideloading. Nothing stops Facebook or WhatsApp from bypassing Apple's native guidelines and force their evil, expensive anticonsumer practices down user's throat on the web or competing platforms.
      - robin_reala 3y ago
        Android already has third-party app stores. Have Meta done that there?
        huytersd 3y ago
        Android is fragmented and open source. There’s no large entitý to squeeze money out of.
      - ThatPlayer 3y ago
        That's my point. If consumers are willing to go directly to Facebook, and Facebook are willing to serve them directly, why does Apple need to get involved? On the other hand, if consumers want Apple involved, they wouldn't leave the app store, they wouldn't download the app, and the app will fail when there's no users.
  - abhibeckert 3y ago
    If you hate Zuck so much, why are you using his products?
    - Nevermark 3y ago
      Maybe the causal direction goes the other way. Someone who loves Zuck products and finds them indispensable, but still underhanded and despicable in terms of user abuse (surveillance, manipulative feeds, no socially healthy ad-free no-tracking neutral-feed for-pay option …), has reason to dislike Mr. Meta. Unfortunately, reality is rarely as a la carte as we all might wish.
  - perryizgr8 3y ago
    > I do not relish the idea of having to download Facebook/Instagram/WhatsApp directly from a 3rd party store. So don't. It's your choice. The benefit is that those who don't mind, will also be able to exercise their choice.
  - jjulius 3y ago
    A whole lot of people taking this hypothetical seriously but nobody bothering to ask the real question... Why do you think you will be unable to download FB, IG & WA from the App Store?
    - mckn1ght 3y ago
      Imagine being able to make in app purchases for boosting your posts, or ad campaigns, facebook marketplace items (think meta brand items just like amazon brand items) or tiktok shop items. Now imagine those companies paying a percentage off the top for app store in-app purchases when there is an alternative that doesn’t involve that percentage. Facebook and Amazon have both tried (and failed) to make their own phones. That’s how much they want to control the entire UX. Of course they would funnel people to their own app stores. Hell, app stores themselves are places to sell ads and other apps, Apple has proven that. So why wouldn’t a company with the developer resources and monetization potential of Meta or Amazon create their own app store?
      - infotainment 3y ago
        Simple: if they were going to do that, they already would have on Android, where it's possible right now. Sure, Meta could demand that people install their super-extra-spyware version of Instagram from the META STORE instead of Google Play. But, what they'd likely find out is the same thing Epic found out when it tried to found its own store: most users just don't care enough to install stuff from third-party stores, and generally won't bother.
        disgruntledphd2 3y ago
        > Simple: if they were going to do that, they already would have on Android, where it's possible right now. Maybe, maybe not. Android didn't attempt to destroy their business though, whereas Apple did (and then turned around and introduced their own, non ATT compliant ad system).
        jjulius 3y ago
  - Kbelicius 3y ago
    > For me Apple standing between sketchy devs like Zuck-co and my phone is a feature not a bug. They still do since, you know, they make the OS on which those apps would run.
- 2Gkashmiri 3y ago
  > #9 I love a government telling me what I can and cannot buy. I bought an iPhone, in large part, for the security and convenience of all apps coming from a single verifying source. Now it’s going to become the same Balkanized nonsense that Android is. Thanks, Europe. like this person feels like they are being force fed this thing?
bb123 3y ago
I think for many people the fact it is a tightly walled garden is a feature - those walls keep bad actors out. For many people a phone is just a tool, and they're quite happy to pay a tax to make it trouble free. The generation of my parents (60s+) is generally not hugely tech savvy. They remember the days of windows XP well - endless viruses, trojans and expensive security software. One of the reasons iPhones are so popular with this group is they let them use the web without fear of dealing with that again.
- logicprog 3y ago
  Right, but you can get the benefit of the walled garden by just... choosing to only install apps that have been vetted and verified by Apple through their app store, and not from anywhere else. These people are acting like the possibility of getting apps from elsewhere personally affects them, but if they are competent enough adults to know that it's more secure to get apps from the Apple App Store, then it won't, because they aren't forced to use other apps. And yeah maybe that isn't possible for old people or very young people because they aren't competent adults anymore, technologically speaking, but then maybe you could add a parental controls feature that locks down side loading apps or something like that. You don't need to remove the feature entirely to make everyone safe.
  - bb123 3y ago
    I think it will be very hard to do that when the other big players move their apps off the store. They will be effectively forced to download apps like WhatsApp and Instagram from wherever Meta puts them. The net result is more hassle, more risk, and worse privacy and security for them. How is that a win?
    - lnxg33k1 3y ago
      Do you think that meta will give up their presence on the official app store in order to move to a unofficial app store? Because apple will not allow apps on apple app store if they are unofficial, i have no data, but I suspect they will not
logicprog 3y ago
God that thread is infuriating. If they're so worried about apps from outside the Apple App Store being insecure, and want to stick to only installing apps that Apple has approved, then they can literally just limit themselves to only using the Apple App Store and be literally just as "safe" as they were before, with zero difference. They're not forced to get anything from outside the Apple App Store just because the option exists. What, are they infants who can't control themselves? And if other people are using it, so what? Are other people going to install apps on their phones somehow? No, they're not. So others having extra choices they don't want to use doesn't effect them. It's like complaining that your house is made less secure because other people haven't installed a 24/7 surveillance camera and six deadbolts and bullet proof glass like you have. But this is how Apple's propaganda has taught their cultists to think: through learned helplessness. "I need as many choices as possible taken away from me to make sure I'm all safe and secure." Like, no, security (and ease of use) is about having excellent, solid defaults most people won't need to change, NOT about taking away more advanced options.
- endisneigh 3y ago
  What you’re saying isn’t actually true though. Sufficiently popular apps could force users to use alternative methods.
  - logicprog 3y ago
    Maybe, but that's a very limited collection of apps, and I would imagine that such sufficiently popular and well-known apps would actually have a reputation to uphold and proper technical support to ensure that installation is properly verified and that their apps don't contain viruses. Maybe more surveillance might get through, but the solution to that is to have a better sandboxing and permissions model that prevents unwanted data collection by default, since app sandboxing isn't possible to get around by just having your app be downloaded from somewhere else, since it all still has to run on the same phone.
    - lnxg33k1 3y ago
      Do you think that meta will give up their presence on the official app store in order to move to a unofficial app store? Because apple will not allow apps on apple app store if they appear on unofficial, i have no data, but I suspect they will not
paulddraper 3y ago
Exclusivity/elitism. The same mindset that appreciates the "simplicity" of removing all the connection ports from a device.
smoldesu 3y ago
Macrumors and similar fan-forums are usually where stockholders hang out, not casual users. The majority of people who are not directly affiliated with Apple's profitability will probably have no opinion on the topic. That's the best I can rationalize it.
MikusR 3y ago
Usage of Apple products rots the brain
ksec 3y ago
That is not even new. MR comments have been calling for Apple to pull out of EU, or any country that threatens their business model. That is EU, UK, Japan, South Korea, Australia, India and a few others. But never once mentioned pulling out of US or China. Before US took a stance on App Store, they also wanted Apple to lobby the US Goverment to sanction any country that threatens Apple. Including pulling out of NATO. A lot of these only died down ( a bit ) once the US Government took an official stance against App Store monopoly.
- cubefox 3y ago
  > A lot of these only died down ( a bit ) once the US Government took an official stance against App Store monopoly. What does this "stance" amount to, given that the App Store monopoly continues to be perfectly legal in the US?

dylan604 3y ago

Not really sure specifically, but the comments in that thread are comical. "Others apps will stay outside to avoid Apple review process. Bugs and deliberate surveillance will run rampant. " Yup, exactly, but...only to people that choose to actively use these other app stores. If these secondary app stores do not attempt to verify and defend against malicious apps, then they will hopefully be branded as such. For those that choose to continue using them, I have a very tiny violin here ready to play a song of sympathy.

bb123 3y ago
I do not relish the idea of having to download Facebook/Instagram/WhatsApp directly from a 3rd party store. For me Apple standing between sketchy devs like Zuck-co and my phone is a feature not a bug.
- dylan604 3y ago
  If you see apps only appearing in 3rd party stores and not on the Apple store, then that would be a huge red flag. Hopefully, there will be someone looking to make a name for themselves that would download the binaries from each store it is available and test for any differences. Those looking to avoid the cut paid to Apple seem to get all of the attention, but it's these more nefarious things that scare the bejeebus out of me. I don't even use apps from Apple's store because of the shit devs pull. No way in hell would I use something unregulated
- smoldesu 3y ago
  From United States v. American Tel. (1983): > The threat to competition that is claimed to be posed by AT&T in this industry is that, through the use of cross-subsidization and customer discrimination, it will use its power in the interexchange market to disadvantage competing electronic publishers. While the possibility of cross-subsidization is as remote here as it is with respect to other subjects considered herein, there is a real danger that AT&T will use its control of the interexchange network to undermine competing publishing ventures. Sounds familiar, I wonder how things ended for Ma Bell?
  - dylan604 3y ago
    > I wonder how things ended for Ma Bell? For a while, they were broken up into the baby bells. Then, one baby bell started buying up all of the other baby bells and renamed itself ATT. Clearly, that's a totally different company than AT&T. So, ultimately, nothing.
    - smoldesu 3y ago
      From a less misanthropic perspective, we avoided the immediate outcome of a direct monopoly and have an undeniably more robust telecommunications infrastructure because of it. If we get an AT&T-style placation out of Apple, I'd consider ourselves lucky.
    - abhibeckert 3y ago
      Ma Bell, at it's peak, was arguably biggest company in the entire world. The new comglomerate of "baby bells" isn't even the biggest Telco provider in the USA, let alone the biggest company in the USA... let alone the biggest in the world.
- ThatPlayer 3y ago
  You can choose to let Apple stand between you by staying on Apple's App Store. If you don't get an app because Apple is blocking it from the App Store, isn't that working as intended? If you choose to ignore Apple's block and get the app elsewhere, then it sounds like Apple's barrier is a bug
  - huytersd 3y ago
    Not if Facebook, WhatsApp etc pull their apps from the App Store and only make it available from 3rd party sources.
    - smoldesu 3y ago
      That's a possibility right now, with or without iOS sideloading. Nothing stops Facebook or WhatsApp from bypassing Apple's native guidelines and force their evil, expensive anticonsumer practices down user's throat on the web or competing platforms.
    - robin_reala 3y ago
      Android already has third-party app stores. Have Meta done that there?
      - huytersd 3y ago
        Android is fragmented and open source. There’s no large entitý to squeeze money out of.
    - ThatPlayer 3y ago
      That's my point. If consumers are willing to go directly to Facebook, and Facebook are willing to serve them directly, why does Apple need to get involved? On the other hand, if consumers want Apple involved, they wouldn't leave the app store, they wouldn't download the app, and the app will fail when there's no users.
- abhibeckert 3y ago
  If you hate Zuck so much, why are you using his products?
  - Nevermark 3y ago
    Maybe the causal direction goes the other way. Someone who loves Zuck products and finds them indispensable, but still underhanded and despicable in terms of user abuse (surveillance, manipulative feeds, no socially healthy ad-free no-tracking neutral-feed for-pay option …), has reason to dislike Mr. Meta. Unfortunately, reality is rarely as a la carte as we all might wish.
- perryizgr8 3y ago
  > I do not relish the idea of having to download Facebook/Instagram/WhatsApp directly from a 3rd party store. So don't. It's your choice. The benefit is that those who don't mind, will also be able to exercise their choice.
- jjulius 3y ago
  A whole lot of people taking this hypothetical seriously but nobody bothering to ask the real question... Why do you think you will be unable to download FB, IG & WA from the App Store?
  - mckn1ght 3y ago
    Imagine being able to make in app purchases for boosting your posts, or ad campaigns, facebook marketplace items (think meta brand items just like amazon brand items) or tiktok shop items. Now imagine those companies paying a percentage off the top for app store in-app purchases when there is an alternative that doesn’t involve that percentage. Facebook and Amazon have both tried (and failed) to make their own phones. That’s how much they want to control the entire UX. Of course they would funnel people to their own app stores. Hell, app stores themselves are places to sell ads and other apps, Apple has proven that. So why wouldn’t a company with the developer resources and monetization potential of Meta or Amazon create their own app store?
    - infotainment 3y ago
      Simple: if they were going to do that, they already would have on Android, where it's possible right now. Sure, Meta could demand that people install their super-extra-spyware version of Instagram from the META STORE instead of Google Play. But, what they'd likely find out is the same thing Epic found out when it tried to found its own store: most users just don't care enough to install stuff from third-party stores, and generally won't bother.
      - disgruntledphd2 3y ago
        > Simple: if they were going to do that, they already would have on Android, where it's possible right now. Maybe, maybe not. Android didn't attempt to destroy their business though, whereas Apple did (and then turned around and introduced their own, non ATT compliant ad system).
        jjulius 3y ago
- Kbelicius 3y ago
  > For me Apple standing between sketchy devs like Zuck-co and my phone is a feature not a bug. They still do since, you know, they make the OS on which those apps would run.
2Gkashmiri 3y ago
> #9 I love a government telling me what I can and cannot buy. I bought an iPhone, in large part, for the security and convenience of all apps coming from a single verifying source. Now it’s going to become the same Balkanized nonsense that Android is. Thanks, Europe. like this person feels like they are being force fed this thing?

bb123 3y ago

I think for many people the fact it is a tightly walled garden is a feature - those walls keep bad actors out. For many people a phone is just a tool, and they're quite happy to pay a tax to make it trouble free. The generation of my parents (60s+) is generally not hugely tech savvy. They remember the days of windows XP well - endless viruses, trojans and expensive security software. One of the reasons iPhones are so popular with this group is they let them use the web without fear of dealing with that again.

logicprog 3y ago
Right, but you can get the benefit of the walled garden by just... choosing to only install apps that have been vetted and verified by Apple through their app store, and not from anywhere else. These people are acting like the possibility of getting apps from elsewhere personally affects them, but if they are competent enough adults to know that it's more secure to get apps from the Apple App Store, then it won't, because they aren't forced to use other apps. And yeah maybe that isn't possible for old people or very young people because they aren't competent adults anymore, technologically speaking, but then maybe you could add a parental controls feature that locks down side loading apps or something like that. You don't need to remove the feature entirely to make everyone safe.
- bb123 3y ago
  I think it will be very hard to do that when the other big players move their apps off the store. They will be effectively forced to download apps like WhatsApp and Instagram from wherever Meta puts them. The net result is more hassle, more risk, and worse privacy and security for them. How is that a win?
  - lnxg33k1 3y ago
    Do you think that meta will give up their presence on the official app store in order to move to a unofficial app store? Because apple will not allow apps on apple app store if they are unofficial, i have no data, but I suspect they will not

logicprog 3y ago

God that thread is infuriating. If they're so worried about apps from outside the Apple App Store being insecure, and want to stick to only installing apps that Apple has approved, then they can literally just limit themselves to only using the Apple App Store and be literally just as "safe" as they were before, with zero difference. They're not forced to get anything from outside the Apple App Store just because the option exists. What, are they infants who can't control themselves? And if other people are using it, so what? Are other people going to install apps on their phones somehow? No, they're not. So others having extra choices they don't want to use doesn't effect them. It's like complaining that your house is made less secure because other people haven't installed a 24/7 surveillance camera and six deadbolts and bullet proof glass like you have. But this is how Apple's propaganda has taught their cultists to think: through learned helplessness. "I need as many choices as possible taken away from me to make sure I'm all safe and secure." Like, no, security (and ease of use) is about having excellent, solid defaults most people won't need to change, NOT about taking away more advanced options.

endisneigh 3y ago
What you’re saying isn’t actually true though. Sufficiently popular apps could force users to use alternative methods.
- logicprog 3y ago
  Maybe, but that's a very limited collection of apps, and I would imagine that such sufficiently popular and well-known apps would actually have a reputation to uphold and proper technical support to ensure that installation is properly verified and that their apps don't contain viruses. Maybe more surveillance might get through, but the solution to that is to have a better sandboxing and permissions model that prevents unwanted data collection by default, since app sandboxing isn't possible to get around by just having your app be downloaded from somewhere else, since it all still has to run on the same phone.
  - lnxg33k1 3y ago
    Do you think that meta will give up their presence on the official app store in order to move to a unofficial app store? Because apple will not allow apps on apple app store if they appear on unofficial, i have no data, but I suspect they will not

paulddraper 3y ago

Exclusivity/elitism. The same mindset that appreciates the "simplicity" of removing all the connection ports from a device.

smoldesu 3y ago

Macrumors and similar fan-forums are usually where stockholders hang out, not casual users. The majority of people who are not directly affiliated with Apple's profitability will probably have no opinion on the topic. That's the best I can rationalize it.

MikusR 3y ago

Usage of Apple products rots the brain

ksec 3y ago

That is not even new. MR comments have been calling for Apple to pull out of EU, or any country that threatens their business model. That is EU, UK, Japan, South Korea, Australia, India and a few others. But never once mentioned pulling out of US or China. Before US took a stance on App Store, they also wanted Apple to lobby the US Goverment to sanction any country that threatens Apple. Including pulling out of NATO. A lot of these only died down ( a bit ) once the US Government took an official stance against App Store monopoly.

cubefox 3y ago
> A lot of these only died down ( a bit ) once the US Government took an official stance against App Store monopoly. What does this "stance" amount to, given that the App Store monopoly continues to be perfectly legal in the US?