5 ms·

The problem with Apple's walled garden is that there's literally zero consumer choice for interoperability. If you have 10 devices and 4 of them are Apple, it d

The problem with Apple's walled garden is that there's literally zero consumer choice for interoperability. If you have 10 devices and 4 of them are Apple, it doesn't matter that 6 of them are running F-Droid. Anything that requires you to install your app on all 10 devices is impossible to do. Everyone is limited to what Apple allows in their walled garden whether they choose it or not.

lolinder 3y ago
Yes, if you buy walled-garden devices you won't have a great time trying to install things that were meant for devices outside of the walled garden. I can see how that is unfortunate, but I'm not convinced that it's an argument for tearing down the walls. The alternatives that most here on HN are pushing for would ultimately lead to a walled garden no longer being an option for consumers at all. I think the status quo is preferable: consumers who don't want to participate in the walled garden can choose to not buy devices that are explicitly sold as being part of said garden.
- beeboobaa 3y ago
  > The alternatives that most here on HN are pushing for would ultimately lead to a walled garden no longer being an option for consumers at all. I think the status quo is preferable: consumers who don't want to participate in the walled garden can choose to not buy devices that are explicitly sold as being part of said garden. Why do apple fans always come up with bizarre fantasies like this? This isn't a problem for Android today, and it won't be a problem for mainstream apps when apple is finally forced to open up thanks to the EU. More than 99% of the users will never install anything other than from the official Play store. But they are allowed to without Big Daddy Apple telling them "No". And that's what matters.
  - lolinder 3y ago
    Did you miss my first comment where I said I'm an Android and F-Droid user? It's not like I don't know how Android works. The only Apple device I use is my work-issued MacBook. The difference between Android and iOS is that Apple actually has rules that are strict enough to motivate the likes of Facebook to actively encourage people to side load if given the chance. I'm not comfortable looking at Android as a precedent, because Google is extremely lax with what kinds of things they allow on the Play Store, so the path of least resistance is acceptable to basically everyone. I do not believe the same would be true of Apple's store.
    - beeboobaa 3y ago
      > because Google is extremely lax with what kinds of things they allow on the Play Store Not really. They are pretty strict, actually. > The difference between Android and iOS is that Apple actually has rules that are strict enough to motivate the likes of Facebook to actively encourage people to side load if given the chance I doubt it. Especially after Apple will have submitted to the rest of the DMA.
    - smoldesu 3y ago
      > because Google is extremely lax with what kinds of things they allow on the Play Store And Apple is known for being just so diligent with their App Store reviews, huh? https://www.pcmag.com/news/beware-theres-a-fake-lastpass-app-on-apples-app-store https://www.pcmag.com/news/beware-theres-a-fake-lastpass-app...
troupo 3y ago
> Everyone is limited to what Apple allows in their walled garden whether they choose it or not. And those limitations are? iMessage? The world outside the US doesn't use iMessage that much. It's Whatsapp, and Facebook Messenger, and Telegram, and Viber, and... Apple Photos? I have Google Photos on my iPhone, and they work better and faster than Apple's own Actually, I struggle to think what Apple-exclusive things I use apart from Safari (and I've been using it on macs since 2007 or so).
- lukeschlather 3y ago
  So, one example I can give is Briar, which is a distributed messaging app. I don't know that I actually want to use Briar, but in order for it to be useful to me it would need to run on iOS, since I have too many people I would want to use it with who use iOS. You can't see the things that aren't allowed, because they don't exist. The Briar team hasn't even built an iOS app because they know it would be rejected.
  - troupo 3y ago
    Of course Briar would not be rejected. It's not on iOS for a purely technical reason: it just wouldn't work there the way it's designed to work: - https://code.briarproject.org/briar/briar/-/issues/445 https://code.briarproject.org/briar/briar/-/issues/445 - https://sourceforge.net/p/briar/mailman/message/36415432/ https://sourceforge.net/p/briar/mailman/message/36415432/
kjreact 3y ago
> zero consumer choice for interoperability I can use WhatsApp, Signal, Google Chat for messaging instead of iMessage. I can use Spotify, YouTube Music, Sirius instead of Apple Music for streaming music. What do you mean by zero consumer choice for interoperability? I see plenty of choices. > Everyone is limited to what Apple allows in their walled garden whether they choose it or not What software is Apple not allowing? I see competitors’ software available on their platform. The only issue is that these competitors want to avoid paying fees to Apple and argue under the guise of protecting consumer freedom.
- naravara 3y ago
  > What software is Apple not allowing? I see competitors’ software available on their platform. The only issue is that these competitors want to avoid paying fees to Apple and argue under the guise of protecting consumer freedom. Porn apps and hate speech mostly. They supposedly also bar a lot of outright scams and malware, but a lot also sneaks through.
  - FireBeyond 3y ago
    And yet they allow a lot of gambling and pseudo-gambling apps (probably because at least the latter makes bank with IAP). It's a strange morality that says "porn bad, gambling good".
r00fus 3y ago
Apps exist on multiple platforms just fine. The fact that dealing with App Store approval rules & timing sucks is just a cost of doing business. Plenty of outfits deal with it to get the exposure/userbase or ignore it.

lolinder 3y ago

Yes, if you buy walled-garden devices you won't have a great time trying to install things that were meant for devices outside of the walled garden. I can see how that is unfortunate, but I'm not convinced that it's an argument for tearing down the walls. The alternatives that most here on HN are pushing for would ultimately lead to a walled garden no longer being an option for consumers at all. I think the status quo is preferable: consumers who don't want to participate in the walled garden can choose to not buy devices that are explicitly sold as being part of said garden.

beeboobaa 3y ago
> The alternatives that most here on HN are pushing for would ultimately lead to a walled garden no longer being an option for consumers at all. I think the status quo is preferable: consumers who don't want to participate in the walled garden can choose to not buy devices that are explicitly sold as being part of said garden. Why do apple fans always come up with bizarre fantasies like this? This isn't a problem for Android today, and it won't be a problem for mainstream apps when apple is finally forced to open up thanks to the EU. More than 99% of the users will never install anything other than from the official Play store. But they are allowed to without Big Daddy Apple telling them "No". And that's what matters.
- lolinder 3y ago
  Did you miss my first comment where I said I'm an Android and F-Droid user? It's not like I don't know how Android works. The only Apple device I use is my work-issued MacBook. The difference between Android and iOS is that Apple actually has rules that are strict enough to motivate the likes of Facebook to actively encourage people to side load if given the chance. I'm not comfortable looking at Android as a precedent, because Google is extremely lax with what kinds of things they allow on the Play Store, so the path of least resistance is acceptable to basically everyone. I do not believe the same would be true of Apple's store.
  - beeboobaa 3y ago
    > because Google is extremely lax with what kinds of things they allow on the Play Store Not really. They are pretty strict, actually. > The difference between Android and iOS is that Apple actually has rules that are strict enough to motivate the likes of Facebook to actively encourage people to side load if given the chance I doubt it. Especially after Apple will have submitted to the rest of the DMA.
  - smoldesu 3y ago
    > because Google is extremely lax with what kinds of things they allow on the Play Store And Apple is known for being just so diligent with their App Store reviews, huh? https://www.pcmag.com/news/beware-theres-a-fake-lastpass-app-on-apples-app-store https://www.pcmag.com/news/beware-theres-a-fake-lastpass-app...

troupo 3y ago

> Everyone is limited to what Apple allows in their walled garden whether they choose it or not. And those limitations are? iMessage? The world outside the US doesn't use iMessage that much. It's Whatsapp, and Facebook Messenger, and Telegram, and Viber, and... Apple Photos? I have Google Photos on my iPhone, and they work better and faster than Apple's own Actually, I struggle to think what Apple-exclusive things I use apart from Safari (and I've been using it on macs since 2007 or so).

lukeschlather 3y ago
So, one example I can give is Briar, which is a distributed messaging app. I don't know that I actually want to use Briar, but in order for it to be useful to me it would need to run on iOS, since I have too many people I would want to use it with who use iOS. You can't see the things that aren't allowed, because they don't exist. The Briar team hasn't even built an iOS app because they know it would be rejected.
- troupo 3y ago
  Of course Briar would not be rejected. It's not on iOS for a purely technical reason: it just wouldn't work there the way it's designed to work: - https://code.briarproject.org/briar/briar/-/issues/445 https://code.briarproject.org/briar/briar/-/issues/445 - https://sourceforge.net/p/briar/mailman/message/36415432/ https://sourceforge.net/p/briar/mailman/message/36415432/

kjreact 3y ago

> zero consumer choice for interoperability I can use WhatsApp, Signal, Google Chat for messaging instead of iMessage. I can use Spotify, YouTube Music, Sirius instead of Apple Music for streaming music. What do you mean by zero consumer choice for interoperability? I see plenty of choices. > Everyone is limited to what Apple allows in their walled garden whether they choose it or not What software is Apple not allowing? I see competitors’ software available on their platform. The only issue is that these competitors want to avoid paying fees to Apple and argue under the guise of protecting consumer freedom.

naravara 3y ago
> What software is Apple not allowing? I see competitors’ software available on their platform. The only issue is that these competitors want to avoid paying fees to Apple and argue under the guise of protecting consumer freedom. Porn apps and hate speech mostly. They supposedly also bar a lot of outright scams and malware, but a lot also sneaks through.
- FireBeyond 3y ago
  And yet they allow a lot of gambling and pseudo-gambling apps (probably because at least the latter makes bank with IAP). It's a strange morality that says "porn bad, gambling good".

r00fus 3y ago

Apps exist on multiple platforms just fine. The fact that dealing with App Store approval rules & timing sucks is just a cost of doing business. Plenty of outfits deal with it to get the exposure/userbase or ignore it.