6 ms·

debating about how they run the store is totally valid, but there being only one store absolutely does make iOS safer overall

by nektro 3y ago

greazy 3y ago
But does it? I haven't seen any hard evidence, and lots of anecdotal tales of technology illiterate grandparents, fathers and mothers being better off.
- AnthonyMouse 3y ago
  Particularly when there are better alternatives. For example, put a physical hardware switch on the inside of the device that disables new stores from being added. Now you can set up your technically disinclined relatives with Apple's store, and a couple of others you trust if it pleases you, then flip the switch and they can't get into trouble because they can't add others. Move the switch back and the device won't boot without a factory wipe. That's going to deter both anyone who can't successfully disassemble the device to flip the switch (i.e. severely technically illiterate people) and the people who aren't willing to press YES to a prompt that says it's about to erase all their data (i.e. mildly technically illiterate people), while leaving it possible for exactly the people it should be possible for.
  - chongli 3y ago
    What happens when Meta, X, Google et al. move to their own stores where they distribute apps unencumbered by Apple's privacy policies? Your relatives then contact you and insist that you flip the switch for them so they can install Facebook and Instagram from the Meta store so they can continue scrolling cat memes. I have yet to hear a convincing argument (from multi-store proponents) about how to prevent this. If the big social media companies pull their apps from Apple's official store and move to their own stores (with unfettered access to spy on users) then they will be successful at dragging their users with them. Furthermore, there is no evidence that GDPR has had any success stopping them from siphoning up all the data they want.
    - AnthonyMouse 3y ago
      You tell them to use the service's web page because their app isn't available from a trustworthy source. And if their web page sucks, you encourage them to use a competing service whenever possible and only use the inconvenient one when strictly necessary. Which, as others do the same, pressures the service to do what you want and put their app in the existing store. This is the same thing that Apple does if they refuse to follow the process as it is, right? You're being insufficiently stubborn. And excessively dismissive if you think users making choices have no power. There are demonstrably people committed to having it their way: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39685700 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39685700 Unless you think tech companies have gotten too big and people don't have a choice anymore. If you have a monopoly, what you want is not another monopoly to fight them over which gets to fleece you, it's to smash them both by any available means. One of which is resistance through personal choices, one of which is... anti-trust enforcement.
      - chongli 3y ago
        Users don't have much power, individually. They express their power collectively through the political system. I'm just very skeptical of the approach taken by Europe with the DMA. It seems to be less about empowering individual users and more about letting other large players carve up the Apple/Google 2-slice pie into a few more big slices.
        throwaway2037 3y ago
        I'm confused by this post. > about letting other large players carve up the Apple/Google 2-slice pie into a few more big slices Do you not believe that increasing competition for app stores will "empower individual users"? If yes, please provide an alternative to DMA that will benefits users more.
        chongli 3y ago
        Apple markets their offering on its privacy and security. In effect, they act as a bargaining agent on behalf of their users which says no to a lot of the tracking Google, Meta, et al. want to do. Due to Apple's marketshare and the nature of this arrangement (the walled garden), these trackers are forced to bargain with Apple as a unit. The DMA seeks to put an end to this arrangement and allow the trackers to bargain with users individually. So, to answer your question: no, I do not believe it will empower individual users. If we really want to empower individual users we should be looking to inject more competition into the social media markets as well. More "app stores" that do nothing but offer the same apps while bypassing Apple's protections will not benefit users. And if the 30% Apple tax is the real problem then why not legislate against that directly?
- throwaway2037 3y ago
  > lots of anecdotal tales of technology illiterate grandparents, fathers and mothers being better off I'll bite. Is there anyone here that thinks overall security for elderly (and lower skilled users) will *not* be hurt by additional app stores? I find it hard to believe. And, I write this post an an uber geek is is neither an Apple fan boi, but is very impressive by their overall security and UX. For the geeks, it would be great to have more stores. For the average users... maybe... For the least tech-savvy users, I cannot believe it will benefit them.
  - rpdillon 3y ago
    > For the least tech-savvy users, I cannot believe it will benefit them. My parents are in their 80s and use Android with F-Droid (I set it up for them). No scams. No account or password. No ads. Simple apps. They have definitely benefited from having more choices available to them, specifically a repo of software built with something other than profit motive in mind. Apple's not very good at offering that.
  - fennecbutt 3y ago
    I still feel like that argument is like a "won't somebody please think of the children" one. If app stores need to be locked down to protect the elderly, then surely the Internet needs to be locked down to protect all children. After all, Safari still navigates little Jimmy to pornhub if he clicks the link. I feel like the real solution, same as the one most parents should be using instead of forcing it into everyone else is the same it's always been; don't give young Jimmy unfettered access to the Internet (and use a child/safety filter in your own home/on your own devices) and for Apple to provide a setting that enables/disables alternative app stores, so that children of the elderly can choose for them in the same way they'd choose for their children.
    - greazy 3y ago
      This was my reasoning as well. I guess the mention of the elderly side tracked the discussion of safety and security of app stores.
    - int_19h 3y ago
josephg 3y ago
Having only one website would also make the web safer. But it would also be super lame. Is that a trade you would make? Why would we want freedom to self publish on the web but not in mobile apps?
- coldtea 3y ago
  I'd prefer zero websites, but I'd settle for one.
jraph 3y ago
The vast majority of Android users use the Play Store (or the Amazon thing) exclusively. So Android is not different than iOS in this regard. The vanishingly few remaining users use F-Droid (sometimes exclusively), which is probably the safest app store on Earth, with GNU/Linux and *BSD distros' base repositories. Open source only, reproducible builds with public recipes written independently, trackers removed (because they usually rely on non-free libs). I honestly don't see how having only one store makes an OS safer. That store could be an unchecked mess. We could talk about policies around app inclusion and permission management though.
- ben_w 3y ago
  If the argument is "the number of stores is not a useful metric", I agree. If the argument is "Apple in particular has a huge vested interest in making sure that their first party App Store doesn't distribute malware", that's somewhat stronger. I don't know which argument nektro was trying to make, I could read it either way. Personally, I lean towards the point about vested interests, although it is only "lean towards" not "fully embrace": what they care about isn't strictly security, but their bottom line, and being a US company with US moral norms and US payment providers, this can also be observed in the form of their content rules — they seem to treat sex as a much more important thing to hide than violence[0]. This does not sit well with people like me who think violence is bad and sex is good. [0] A bit over a decade ago, the app submission process flagged the word "knopf" in German translations, telling me it was a rude word and I might get in trouble if I was using inappropriate language. It's the German word for button… or knob (but in the sense of button, it's never a dick), and so I can only assume someone got a naughty words list in English and translated it literally rather than asking for a local list of naughty words.
- jhugo 3y ago
  > The vast majority of Android users use the Play Store (or the Amazon thing) exclusively Are you sure? Android phones are pretty big in China, which is by far the world's largest smartphone market, and I guess Play Store & "the Amazon thing" (I don't remember the name either) adoption there is close to 0%. Anecdotally I have noticed a lot of people using phone vendor app stores in India (the second largest market, though half the number of devices as China) and Indonesia (another huge market). Taken together I'm very skeptical that Play Store + Amazon have a majority of Android users.

debating about how they run the store is totally valid, but there being only one store absolutely does make iOS safer overall

by nektro 3y ago

debating about how they run the store is totally valid, but there being only one store absolutely does make iOS safer overall

greazy 3y ago

But does it? I haven't seen any hard evidence, and lots of anecdotal tales of technology illiterate grandparents, fathers and mothers being better off.

AnthonyMouse 3y ago
Particularly when there are better alternatives. For example, put a physical hardware switch on the inside of the device that disables new stores from being added. Now you can set up your technically disinclined relatives with Apple's store, and a couple of others you trust if it pleases you, then flip the switch and they can't get into trouble because they can't add others. Move the switch back and the device won't boot without a factory wipe. That's going to deter both anyone who can't successfully disassemble the device to flip the switch (i.e. severely technically illiterate people) and the people who aren't willing to press YES to a prompt that says it's about to erase all their data (i.e. mildly technically illiterate people), while leaving it possible for exactly the people it should be possible for.
- chongli 3y ago
  What happens when Meta, X, Google et al. move to their own stores where they distribute apps unencumbered by Apple's privacy policies? Your relatives then contact you and insist that you flip the switch for them so they can install Facebook and Instagram from the Meta store so they can continue scrolling cat memes. I have yet to hear a convincing argument (from multi-store proponents) about how to prevent this. If the big social media companies pull their apps from Apple's official store and move to their own stores (with unfettered access to spy on users) then they will be successful at dragging their users with them. Furthermore, there is no evidence that GDPR has had any success stopping them from siphoning up all the data they want.
  - AnthonyMouse 3y ago
    You tell them to use the service's web page because their app isn't available from a trustworthy source. And if their web page sucks, you encourage them to use a competing service whenever possible and only use the inconvenient one when strictly necessary. Which, as others do the same, pressures the service to do what you want and put their app in the existing store. This is the same thing that Apple does if they refuse to follow the process as it is, right? You're being insufficiently stubborn. And excessively dismissive if you think users making choices have no power. There are demonstrably people committed to having it their way: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39685700 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39685700 Unless you think tech companies have gotten too big and people don't have a choice anymore. If you have a monopoly, what you want is not another monopoly to fight them over which gets to fleece you, it's to smash them both by any available means. One of which is resistance through personal choices, one of which is... anti-trust enforcement.
    - chongli 3y ago
      Users don't have much power, individually. They express their power collectively through the political system. I'm just very skeptical of the approach taken by Europe with the DMA. It seems to be less about empowering individual users and more about letting other large players carve up the Apple/Google 2-slice pie into a few more big slices.
      - throwaway2037 3y ago
        I'm confused by this post. > about letting other large players carve up the Apple/Google 2-slice pie into a few more big slices Do you not believe that increasing competition for app stores will "empower individual users"? If yes, please provide an alternative to DMA that will benefits users more.
        chongli 3y ago
        Apple markets their offering on its privacy and security. In effect, they act as a bargaining agent on behalf of their users which says no to a lot of the tracking Google, Meta, et al. want to do. Due to Apple's marketshare and the nature of this arrangement (the walled garden), these trackers are forced to bargain with Apple as a unit. The DMA seeks to put an end to this arrangement and allow the trackers to bargain with users individually. So, to answer your question: no, I do not believe it will empower individual users. If we really want to empower individual users we should be looking to inject more competition into the social media markets as well. More "app stores" that do nothing but offer the same apps while bypassing Apple's protections will not benefit users. And if the 30% Apple tax is the real problem then why not legislate against that directly?
throwaway2037 3y ago
> lots of anecdotal tales of technology illiterate grandparents, fathers and mothers being better off I'll bite. Is there anyone here that thinks overall security for elderly (and lower skilled users) will *not* be hurt by additional app stores? I find it hard to believe. And, I write this post an an uber geek is is neither an Apple fan boi, but is very impressive by their overall security and UX. For the geeks, it would be great to have more stores. For the average users... maybe... For the least tech-savvy users, I cannot believe it will benefit them.
- rpdillon 3y ago
  > For the least tech-savvy users, I cannot believe it will benefit them. My parents are in their 80s and use Android with F-Droid (I set it up for them). No scams. No account or password. No ads. Simple apps. They have definitely benefited from having more choices available to them, specifically a repo of software built with something other than profit motive in mind. Apple's not very good at offering that.
- fennecbutt 3y ago
  I still feel like that argument is like a "won't somebody please think of the children" one. If app stores need to be locked down to protect the elderly, then surely the Internet needs to be locked down to protect all children. After all, Safari still navigates little Jimmy to pornhub if he clicks the link. I feel like the real solution, same as the one most parents should be using instead of forcing it into everyone else is the same it's always been; don't give young Jimmy unfettered access to the Internet (and use a child/safety filter in your own home/on your own devices) and for Apple to provide a setting that enables/disables alternative app stores, so that children of the elderly can choose for them in the same way they'd choose for their children.
  - greazy 3y ago
    This was my reasoning as well. I guess the mention of the elderly side tracked the discussion of safety and security of app stores.
  - int_19h 3y ago

josephg 3y ago

Having only one website would also make the web safer. But it would also be super lame. Is that a trade you would make? Why would we want freedom to self publish on the web but not in mobile apps?

coldtea 3y ago
I'd prefer zero websites, but I'd settle for one.

jraph 3y ago

The vast majority of Android users use the Play Store (or the Amazon thing) exclusively. So Android is not different than iOS in this regard. The vanishingly few remaining users use F-Droid (sometimes exclusively), which is probably the safest app store on Earth, with GNU/Linux and *BSD distros' base repositories. Open source only, reproducible builds with public recipes written independently, trackers removed (because they usually rely on non-free libs). I honestly don't see how having only one store makes an OS safer. That store could be an unchecked mess. We could talk about policies around app inclusion and permission management though.

ben_w 3y ago
If the argument is "the number of stores is not a useful metric", I agree. If the argument is "Apple in particular has a huge vested interest in making sure that their first party App Store doesn't distribute malware", that's somewhat stronger. I don't know which argument nektro was trying to make, I could read it either way. Personally, I lean towards the point about vested interests, although it is only "lean towards" not "fully embrace": what they care about isn't strictly security, but their bottom line, and being a US company with US moral norms and US payment providers, this can also be observed in the form of their content rules — they seem to treat sex as a much more important thing to hide than violence[0]. This does not sit well with people like me who think violence is bad and sex is good. [0] A bit over a decade ago, the app submission process flagged the word "knopf" in German translations, telling me it was a rude word and I might get in trouble if I was using inappropriate language. It's the German word for button… or knob (but in the sense of button, it's never a dick), and so I can only assume someone got a naughty words list in English and translated it literally rather than asking for a local list of naughty words.
jhugo 3y ago
> The vast majority of Android users use the Play Store (or the Amazon thing) exclusively Are you sure? Android phones are pretty big in China, which is by far the world's largest smartphone market, and I guess Play Store & "the Amazon thing" (I don't remember the name either) adoption there is close to 0%. Anecdotally I have noticed a lot of people using phone vendor app stores in India (the second largest market, though half the number of devices as China) and Indonesia (another huge market). Taken together I'm very skeptical that Play Store + Amazon have a majority of Android users.