4 ms·

I think something missed when these issues are discussed on sites like this is just how ignorant of computing the average user is. What would be obvious for us

I think something missed when these issues are discussed on sites like this is just how ignorant of computing the average user is. What would be obvious for us "oh it's not from official app store, so I know to apply extra scrutiny" isn't even describable in most people's mental model of computers/smartphones. I don't want my loved ones getting scammed or hacked by people utilizing these new "freedoms". Why can't all of you sideloader/sdk/open source people just stick to android? why do you have to open the enshittification gates to every single platform?

_visgean 3y ago
Imagine if you said the same thing about computers: why do you need to install sw from anything but Microsoft store? Why can't you sideloader people need a different browser than Internet Explorer?
- snapcaster 3y ago
  Exactly! I would tell those people to use Linux, not sue Microsoft to change their operating system
  - smoldesu 3y ago
    "Exactly! I would tell those people to use another telephone, not sue Bell Systems to change their phone network" "Exactly! I would tell those people to find another supplier, not sue Standard Oil to change their business tactics" "Exactly! I would tell those people to ride a different rail, not sue Pacific Railway Co. to change their train routes" - Monopoly apologism, through the centuries
    - iakov 3y ago
      With only difference being that you can buy non-apple device with different features, while Bell was pretty much the only option people had.
      - smoldesu 3y ago
        You could buy non-Bell phones and even connect them to a functioning telephone network. The problem (and incentive for antitrust action) was Bell's business of charging users to connect to their proprietary and all-encompassing network. They created a situation where the only way to compete was to acquiesce with Bell's exploitative terms. It's not illegal to be a monopoly, it's illegal to abuse monopoly power.
        burnerthrow008 3y ago
        > You could buy non-Bell phones and even connect them to a functioning telephone network. First, that is simply a lie. Until the Carterfone decision it was, in fact, illegal to attach a non-Bell phone to the network. Second, Apple has a smaller market share (especially in Europe!) than Android, so it is very hard to see how someone could, in good faith, argue that Apple is a monopoly. Third, Apple is doing nothing to prevent you from buying an Android phone. If you don't like the walled garden, the gate is not locked. You can simply leave.
        smoldesu 3y ago
        > Until the Carterfone decision it was, in fact, illegal to attach a non-Bell phone to the network. ...and the Carterfone decision was long overdue. The entire antitrust legislation against Ma Bell was protracted a half century because, much like Apple, they had armies of lobbyists stationed around the nation. Suffice to say we made the right call on Carterfone, and Bell made the wrong decision by resenting it. > so it is very hard to see how someone could, in good faith, argue that Apple is a monopoly. A natural monopoly, maybe. But the Wabash Case demonstrates that a privately-owned common carrier platform can be subject to antitrust law without owning the majority of the rail. The European DMA explicitly goes the extra mile to implicate Apple not as a monopoly, but as a "gatekeeper" with specific fair-play obligations. To them, it wouldn't even matter anyways. > Apple is doing nothing to prevent you from buying an Android phone. Ah, the "innovation" clause. This isn't about Android, because Android phones don't run Apple software. Apple has deliberately designed their ecosystem to funnel back into one exploitative internal market that they are solely responsible for. Android phones are an alternative, but irrelevant in a conversation about App Store alternatives.
- snapcaster 3y ago
  Also curious, why can't you just stick to android? why do you need iOS to also change to support your ideas on computing?
  - LtWorf 3y ago
    I'm curious. Why can't apple obey the law? Why does super-rich foreign company think they can just ignore laws?
JimDabell 3y ago
In fact, side loading leading to scams is that much of a real-world security problem that Android is also trialling restrictions on side loading. Android users constantly get scammed out of tens of thousands of dollars via side loading, while iOS users don’t. Apple are being honest when they say it’s a serious security risk. From Google: > Based on our analysis of major fraud malware families that exploit these sensitive runtime permissions, we found that over 95 per cent of installations came from internet-sideloading sources https://www.channelnewsasia.com/singapore/google-android-devices-malware-scam-unverified-apps-sideloading-4102991 https://www.channelnewsasia.com/singapore/google-android-dev...
- snapcaster 3y ago
  Of course it is, it's honestly insane how echo-chamber sites like this are where people only have the view of whats good for developers and/or nerds like us who want to sideload weird shit. As much as developers complain about the apple app store it's really completely fine for users and customers. Wanting a better revenue share with a supplier/partner/distributer is just normal business shit. The whole user freedom thing seems like distraction to me
thomastjeffery 3y ago
So the solution that you propose to this "security problem" is to make sure all software is downloaded through the app store. ...the app store that requires AP devs to pay Apple 30%. That's... convenient. There is nothing wrong with using a package manager to guarantee the source of your software. That's what every major Linux distro has been doing since forever! The problem is that Apple gets to play dictator with their package manager, and vainly call any alternative (that doesn't pay them and cater to their politics) "a virus".
mrguyorama 3y ago
This argument is null and void when "LassPass" passed app store review and was live for more than a day.

_visgean 3y ago

Imagine if you said the same thing about computers: why do you need to install sw from anything but Microsoft store? Why can't you sideloader people need a different browser than Internet Explorer?

snapcaster 3y ago
Exactly! I would tell those people to use Linux, not sue Microsoft to change their operating system
- smoldesu 3y ago
  "Exactly! I would tell those people to use another telephone, not sue Bell Systems to change their phone network" "Exactly! I would tell those people to find another supplier, not sue Standard Oil to change their business tactics" "Exactly! I would tell those people to ride a different rail, not sue Pacific Railway Co. to change their train routes" - Monopoly apologism, through the centuries
  - iakov 3y ago
    With only difference being that you can buy non-apple device with different features, while Bell was pretty much the only option people had.
    - smoldesu 3y ago
      You could buy non-Bell phones and even connect them to a functioning telephone network. The problem (and incentive for antitrust action) was Bell's business of charging users to connect to their proprietary and all-encompassing network. They created a situation where the only way to compete was to acquiesce with Bell's exploitative terms. It's not illegal to be a monopoly, it's illegal to abuse monopoly power.
      - burnerthrow008 3y ago
        > You could buy non-Bell phones and even connect them to a functioning telephone network. First, that is simply a lie. Until the Carterfone decision it was, in fact, illegal to attach a non-Bell phone to the network. Second, Apple has a smaller market share (especially in Europe!) than Android, so it is very hard to see how someone could, in good faith, argue that Apple is a monopoly. Third, Apple is doing nothing to prevent you from buying an Android phone. If you don't like the walled garden, the gate is not locked. You can simply leave.
        smoldesu 3y ago
        > Until the Carterfone decision it was, in fact, illegal to attach a non-Bell phone to the network. ...and the Carterfone decision was long overdue. The entire antitrust legislation against Ma Bell was protracted a half century because, much like Apple, they had armies of lobbyists stationed around the nation. Suffice to say we made the right call on Carterfone, and Bell made the wrong decision by resenting it. > so it is very hard to see how someone could, in good faith, argue that Apple is a monopoly. A natural monopoly, maybe. But the Wabash Case demonstrates that a privately-owned common carrier platform can be subject to antitrust law without owning the majority of the rail. The European DMA explicitly goes the extra mile to implicate Apple not as a monopoly, but as a "gatekeeper" with specific fair-play obligations. To them, it wouldn't even matter anyways. > Apple is doing nothing to prevent you from buying an Android phone. Ah, the "innovation" clause. This isn't about Android, because Android phones don't run Apple software. Apple has deliberately designed their ecosystem to funnel back into one exploitative internal market that they are solely responsible for. Android phones are an alternative, but irrelevant in a conversation about App Store alternatives.
snapcaster 3y ago
Also curious, why can't you just stick to android? why do you need iOS to also change to support your ideas on computing?
- LtWorf 3y ago
  I'm curious. Why can't apple obey the law? Why does super-rich foreign company think they can just ignore laws?

JimDabell 3y ago

In fact, side loading leading to scams is that much of a real-world security problem that Android is also trialling restrictions on side loading. Android users constantly get scammed out of tens of thousands of dollars via side loading, while iOS users don’t. Apple are being honest when they say it’s a serious security risk. From Google: > Based on our analysis of major fraud malware families that exploit these sensitive runtime permissions, we found that over 95 per cent of installations came from internet-sideloading sources https://www.channelnewsasia.com/singapore/google-android-devices-malware-scam-unverified-apps-sideloading-4102991 https://www.channelnewsasia.com/singapore/google-android-dev...

snapcaster 3y ago
Of course it is, it's honestly insane how echo-chamber sites like this are where people only have the view of whats good for developers and/or nerds like us who want to sideload weird shit. As much as developers complain about the apple app store it's really completely fine for users and customers. Wanting a better revenue share with a supplier/partner/distributer is just normal business shit. The whole user freedom thing seems like distraction to me

thomastjeffery 3y ago

So the solution that you propose to this "security problem" is to make sure all software is downloaded through the app store. ...the app store that requires AP devs to pay Apple 30%. That's... convenient. There is nothing wrong with using a package manager to guarantee the source of your software. That's what every major Linux distro has been doing since forever! The problem is that Apple gets to play dictator with their package manager, and vainly call any alternative (that doesn't pay them and cater to their politics) "a virus".

mrguyorama 3y ago

This argument is null and void when "LassPass" passed app store review and was live for more than a day.