29 ms·

So then that means that your original argument about "just go use an android" is equally wrong. If you disagree with that argument, fine. But you can't use it

by stale2002 3y ago

So then that means that your original argument about "just go use an android" is equally wrong. If you disagree with that argument, fine. But you can't use it in support of anything. So then no, people cannot "just go use an android" as their choice is equally taken away from them by Apple's market power and decisions. It's totally fine for you to admit that your original argument of "just don't use X" is stupid. Which is why we now have regulation. Which isn't going to go away. Goodbye 30% fee!

generalizations 3y ago
> your original argument about "just go use an android" is equally wrong Uh, no it's not? I'm sorry but you're not making sense. If users want more freedom, they can just use Android. Some users like the walled garden; they can choose Apple. If they want something else, Android is right there. > Apple's market power and decisions Is exactly how and why they managed to have a curated environment. It seems like you have this idea in your head about what I mean, and I don't think it's accurate, and I don't think it's being updated. I'm not going to engage anymore; all you've done is attempt cheap shots, and miss.
- ambichook 3y ago
  If users want more freedom, they can just hit the third party app toggle. Some users like the walled garden; they can choose the app store. do you see the equivalence here? what am i missing?
  - generalizations 3y ago
    Did you read the comments I linked to? I put it pretty clearly there. > Apple offers a curated environment largely through the curation of the app store. That curated environment is massively valuable to the average user. That's the asset Apple is trying to protect. The user chooses to have an opinionated environment that protects them. If they don't want an opinionated environment, they can choose Android. The fact the environment is opinionated is what's valuable to the user, and what Apple is trying to protect. Why? Giving the user the ability to install random apps from 3rd party stores opens up the protected ecosystem such that big players like facebook will absolutely take the opportunity to use 3rd party stores, and users will de facto have to use the 3rd party stores. Now the walls of the garden are torn down, and one of the huge values of the iPhone ecosystem has been destroyed. Big win! Apple's been pulled down to the level of everyone else.
    - ambichook 3y ago
      quick question, is facebook on the google play store? can you name 3 major apps that are apk install only? theres still way more friction to installing them than to just going and downloading them from the play store, so most apps are better off still maintaining a presence on the app store while possibly pushing and nudging people who want to install an apk to do so. the fact that the option is there doesnt mean you HAVE to use it, just like the fact that android exists doesnt mean you HAVE to buy it
      - heisenzombie 3y ago
        Apple implemented strict rules about tracking and privacy that cost Facebook 12 billion dollars: https://www.forbes.com/sites/kateoflahertyuk/2022/04/23/apple-just-issued-stunning-12-billion-blow-to-facebook/?sh=1d0e63461907 https://www.forbes.com/sites/kateoflahertyuk/2022/04/23/appl... I, as a user, think that's great. The Google play store has no similar anti-tracking rules. Why? Well, partly because those rules would negatively impact Google, but also because Meta could credibly decide to move their apps off the play store and onto their own "Meta Store: The only place to get Facebook, Instagram, Threads, and WhatsApp". If it was easy for Meta to set up their own store for iOS, they absolutely would because currently Apple kneecaps their ability to track and sell user data in ways that costs Meta REAL money. Google does not exert the same kind of control over the play store, so Meta is quite happy to keep Facebook there. So, as things stand (with a closed iOS ecosystem) I can use an Instagram app on my phone that's subject to a bunch of pro-consumer rules about tracking and data protection. If iOS allowed third party stores then I would almost certainly not be able to do that any more.
        ambichook 3y ago
        that's not an app store feature, that's an iOS feature. i agree, it's fantastic, it doesnt require apps be distributed via the app store to work, however, its a part of iOS having well designed permissions controls
        heisenzombie 3y ago
- stale2002 3y ago
  > Is exactly how and why they managed to have a curated environment. So in other words they have taken the users choice away using their market power! Glad you agree! Either a user's choice is taken away in both situations, or it is neither situations. > If users want more freedom, they can just use Android. Actually they are unable to get the 30% discount from apps that only work on iPhone. And now they will be! Now the user will be allowed to choose to get that 30% discount and Apple will not be able to take away a user's choice to buy the app on an alternative app store.

generalizations 3y ago

> your original argument about "just go use an android" is equally wrong Uh, no it's not? I'm sorry but you're not making sense. If users want more freedom, they can just use Android. Some users like the walled garden; they can choose Apple. If they want something else, Android is right there. > Apple's market power and decisions Is exactly how and why they managed to have a curated environment. It seems like you have this idea in your head about what I mean, and I don't think it's accurate, and I don't think it's being updated. I'm not going to engage anymore; all you've done is attempt cheap shots, and miss.

ambichook 3y ago
If users want more freedom, they can just hit the third party app toggle. Some users like the walled garden; they can choose the app store. do you see the equivalence here? what am i missing?
- generalizations 3y ago
  Did you read the comments I linked to? I put it pretty clearly there. > Apple offers a curated environment largely through the curation of the app store. That curated environment is massively valuable to the average user. That's the asset Apple is trying to protect. The user chooses to have an opinionated environment that protects them. If they don't want an opinionated environment, they can choose Android. The fact the environment is opinionated is what's valuable to the user, and what Apple is trying to protect. Why? Giving the user the ability to install random apps from 3rd party stores opens up the protected ecosystem such that big players like facebook will absolutely take the opportunity to use 3rd party stores, and users will de facto have to use the 3rd party stores. Now the walls of the garden are torn down, and one of the huge values of the iPhone ecosystem has been destroyed. Big win! Apple's been pulled down to the level of everyone else.
  - ambichook 3y ago
    quick question, is facebook on the google play store? can you name 3 major apps that are apk install only? theres still way more friction to installing them than to just going and downloading them from the play store, so most apps are better off still maintaining a presence on the app store while possibly pushing and nudging people who want to install an apk to do so. the fact that the option is there doesnt mean you HAVE to use it, just like the fact that android exists doesnt mean you HAVE to buy it
    - heisenzombie 3y ago
      Apple implemented strict rules about tracking and privacy that cost Facebook 12 billion dollars: https://www.forbes.com/sites/kateoflahertyuk/2022/04/23/apple-just-issued-stunning-12-billion-blow-to-facebook/?sh=1d0e63461907 https://www.forbes.com/sites/kateoflahertyuk/2022/04/23/appl... I, as a user, think that's great. The Google play store has no similar anti-tracking rules. Why? Well, partly because those rules would negatively impact Google, but also because Meta could credibly decide to move their apps off the play store and onto their own "Meta Store: The only place to get Facebook, Instagram, Threads, and WhatsApp". If it was easy for Meta to set up their own store for iOS, they absolutely would because currently Apple kneecaps their ability to track and sell user data in ways that costs Meta REAL money. Google does not exert the same kind of control over the play store, so Meta is quite happy to keep Facebook there. So, as things stand (with a closed iOS ecosystem) I can use an Instagram app on my phone that's subject to a bunch of pro-consumer rules about tracking and data protection. If iOS allowed third party stores then I would almost certainly not be able to do that any more.
      - ambichook 3y ago
        that's not an app store feature, that's an iOS feature. i agree, it's fantastic, it doesnt require apps be distributed via the app store to work, however, its a part of iOS having well designed permissions controls
        heisenzombie 3y ago
stale2002 3y ago
> Is exactly how and why they managed to have a curated environment. So in other words they have taken the users choice away using their market power! Glad you agree! Either a user's choice is taken away in both situations, or it is neither situations. > If users want more freedom, they can just use Android. Actually they are unable to get the 30% discount from apps that only work on iPhone. And now they will be! Now the user will be allowed to choose to get that 30% discount and Apple will not be able to take away a user's choice to buy the app on an alternative app store.