5 ms·

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.

by greazy 3y ago

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?
        AnthonyMouse 3y ago
        > If we really want to empower individual users we should be looking to inject more competition into the social media markets as well. Sure, but you can do both. > More "app stores" that do nothing but offer the same apps while bypassing Apple's protections will not benefit users. It's not just the same apps though. For example, the license Apple uses for the app store is incompatible with the GPL, so no one can make an iPhone app under the GPL or use existing GPL code in one. That license is one of the things that allows collaborative projects to form and right now that can't happen for iPhones. Likewise, the $100/year fee deters hobbyists from creating apps. And Apple prohibits certain types of content in their store, e.g. adult content or P2P apps, which some users would want. > And if the 30% Apple tax is the real problem then why not legislate against that directly? Price controls are generally a bad idea. The cost of hosting the app installers is generally negligible, but a few apps could be huge, and then it isn't, so how much should it cost? Can they charge a flat percentage of sales or does it have to be per-GB of transfer? What happens when the market price of storage or bandwidth changes over time? What if it's different in different regions? Legislating rules to handle all the edge cases is a fool's errand when competition would handle it for you because anyone who charges too much would lose business to someone who charges less.
  - skydhash 3y ago
    > 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. You should not have to police adults on what they're allowed to do with their property. If someone asks me to help them setup their computer, I may gave some advice and warning about things to avoid. If they asked me to do something that may be dangerous, I can refuse to do it, but I will not actively prevent them from doing so. They're not children. If someone is ok with putting their whole digital life at risk, then let him do so. Just like you can't prevent someone who wants to eat cake all day. It's not your life.
    - xvector 3y ago
      > You should not have to police adults on what they're allowed to do with their property. The fundamental problem with this "power to the people" mentality is that adults don't actually know how to use technology. The average person is technologically illiterate. You can go on about giving adults full control over their property, etc. etc. but we both know that this is how you get security disasters: old people getting scammed, people losing their life savings and what not. Part of being an effective security engineer, is realizing that you need to protect people themselves. 2FA is a prime example of security driven via this mindset: necessary because the technologically illiterate masses reuse passwords. There are other benefits, but that's the main reason. So you shouldn't have to police people, but practically, in the end you do. > If someone is ok with putting their whole digital life at risk, then let him do so. All fun and games until people lose their life savings and get forced into homelessness or whatever. Then these people start to blame you. Then technologically illiterate senators and regulators will also blame you. Lose-lose scenario. Crypto is a prime example of what happens when you give people control. "Power to the people!," tons of people get scammed, and this prompts regulatory lockdown. TL;DR is that the EU regs wouldn't be a problem if Apple could hide the functionality behind developer settings, but they can't. Exciting times, people in the EU are gonna get totally fucked by shady apps. GG.
      - AnthonyMouse 3y ago
        > You can go on about giving adults full control over their property, etc. etc. but we both know that this is how you get security disasters: old people getting scammed, people losing their life savings and what not. This happens when senile people are legally authorized to exercise control over their assets. It has nothing to do with technology and has been happening since before computers existed. The general solution is to appoint a conservator who is required to authorize major transactions. Which hardly justifies using the same measures for someone of sound mind. > 2FA is a prime example of security driven via this mindset: necessary because the technologically illiterate masses reuse passwords. And then their phone number changes or they lose access to their email and you've locked them out of their account. This is particularly egregious when the second factor is required to be a phone number, because people in financial straits will have their service canceled for non-payment and now you've magnified their problems at the worst possible time. But phone numbers serve as a convenient tracking ID since most people only have one of them, which may explain the popularity of requiring them "for your own protection". > All fun and games until people lose their life savings and get forced into homelessness or whatever. We build insecure systems and then blame the users for it and offer to lock them in a cell to protect them from our bad choices. Why is it that anyone can charge a credit card or a bank account who has the account number? Public key cryptography has been a thing for decades. Put a USB-C connector on the credit card itself and require the card to be plugged in to the device the first time each merchant wants to charge the account. 99% of credit card fraud, gone, because you can't breach one merchant and use the card info at a different one without physical access to the card. Meanwhile anyone could trivially cancel a subscription because the list of authorized merchants would be listed on the bank's account webpage and the user could remove one at any time. > Crypto is a prime example of what happens when you give people control. Anybody can go to the bank, right now, and withdraw cash and hand it to a scammer. Sometimes they do. You can also give them your television or company ID badge. Cryptocurrency is no different. Most of the crypto scams are get rich quick schemes, which people have been getting scammed by since the invention of barter. What made cryptocurrency so susceptible to scams wasn't that people were in control, it was that some people were actually getting rich, which made others credulous, and that attracts con men. "We have to protect people from themselves" is only true for small children and the mentally ill. Adults get to make their own choices -- because there is no one else to make them. As soon as you appoint someone else to do it, that person has a conflict of interest and the incentive to defect, and the person affected needs the right to choose differently unless you can prove that this specific person is mentally incapable of exercising reason. "Nobody is ever completely reasonable" doesn't cut it because that applies to the gatekeepers too.
  - johnnyanmac 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? I guess pigs fly or hell freezes over. Musk and Zuckerburg had years after such changes to make their own store on Android (which put in similar privacy policies at the same time as Apple). It doesn't make any sense for them because being off the main store is worse than gleeming off a bit more data to sell. >I have yet to hear a convincing argument (from multi-store proponents) about how to prevent this. How about proving that the subjects in question are on multiple stores to begin with, or otherwise have shown interest? You're questioning GDPR's validity, but your own premise isn't a thing to begin with.
  - CogitoCogito 3y ago
    Why should that be prevented exactly? Why shouldn’t users be able to download apps directly from companies if they want to? Isn’t the whole point of the EU legislation to make all this possible?
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

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.

by 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?
        AnthonyMouse 3y ago
        > If we really want to empower individual users we should be looking to inject more competition into the social media markets as well. Sure, but you can do both. > More "app stores" that do nothing but offer the same apps while bypassing Apple's protections will not benefit users. It's not just the same apps though. For example, the license Apple uses for the app store is incompatible with the GPL, so no one can make an iPhone app under the GPL or use existing GPL code in one. That license is one of the things that allows collaborative projects to form and right now that can't happen for iPhones. Likewise, the $100/year fee deters hobbyists from creating apps. And Apple prohibits certain types of content in their store, e.g. adult content or P2P apps, which some users would want. > And if the 30% Apple tax is the real problem then why not legislate against that directly? Price controls are generally a bad idea. The cost of hosting the app installers is generally negligible, but a few apps could be huge, and then it isn't, so how much should it cost? Can they charge a flat percentage of sales or does it have to be per-GB of transfer? What happens when the market price of storage or bandwidth changes over time? What if it's different in different regions? Legislating rules to handle all the edge cases is a fool's errand when competition would handle it for you because anyone who charges too much would lose business to someone who charges less.
- skydhash 3y ago
  > 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. You should not have to police adults on what they're allowed to do with their property. If someone asks me to help them setup their computer, I may gave some advice and warning about things to avoid. If they asked me to do something that may be dangerous, I can refuse to do it, but I will not actively prevent them from doing so. They're not children. If someone is ok with putting their whole digital life at risk, then let him do so. Just like you can't prevent someone who wants to eat cake all day. It's not your life.
  - xvector 3y ago
    > You should not have to police adults on what they're allowed to do with their property. The fundamental problem with this "power to the people" mentality is that adults don't actually know how to use technology. The average person is technologically illiterate. You can go on about giving adults full control over their property, etc. etc. but we both know that this is how you get security disasters: old people getting scammed, people losing their life savings and what not. Part of being an effective security engineer, is realizing that you need to protect people themselves. 2FA is a prime example of security driven via this mindset: necessary because the technologically illiterate masses reuse passwords. There are other benefits, but that's the main reason. So you shouldn't have to police people, but practically, in the end you do. > If someone is ok with putting their whole digital life at risk, then let him do so. All fun and games until people lose their life savings and get forced into homelessness or whatever. Then these people start to blame you. Then technologically illiterate senators and regulators will also blame you. Lose-lose scenario. Crypto is a prime example of what happens when you give people control. "Power to the people!," tons of people get scammed, and this prompts regulatory lockdown. TL;DR is that the EU regs wouldn't be a problem if Apple could hide the functionality behind developer settings, but they can't. Exciting times, people in the EU are gonna get totally fucked by shady apps. GG.
    - AnthonyMouse 3y ago
      > You can go on about giving adults full control over their property, etc. etc. but we both know that this is how you get security disasters: old people getting scammed, people losing their life savings and what not. This happens when senile people are legally authorized to exercise control over their assets. It has nothing to do with technology and has been happening since before computers existed. The general solution is to appoint a conservator who is required to authorize major transactions. Which hardly justifies using the same measures for someone of sound mind. > 2FA is a prime example of security driven via this mindset: necessary because the technologically illiterate masses reuse passwords. And then their phone number changes or they lose access to their email and you've locked them out of their account. This is particularly egregious when the second factor is required to be a phone number, because people in financial straits will have their service canceled for non-payment and now you've magnified their problems at the worst possible time. But phone numbers serve as a convenient tracking ID since most people only have one of them, which may explain the popularity of requiring them "for your own protection". > All fun and games until people lose their life savings and get forced into homelessness or whatever. We build insecure systems and then blame the users for it and offer to lock them in a cell to protect them from our bad choices. Why is it that anyone can charge a credit card or a bank account who has the account number? Public key cryptography has been a thing for decades. Put a USB-C connector on the credit card itself and require the card to be plugged in to the device the first time each merchant wants to charge the account. 99% of credit card fraud, gone, because you can't breach one merchant and use the card info at a different one without physical access to the card. Meanwhile anyone could trivially cancel a subscription because the list of authorized merchants would be listed on the bank's account webpage and the user could remove one at any time. > Crypto is a prime example of what happens when you give people control. Anybody can go to the bank, right now, and withdraw cash and hand it to a scammer. Sometimes they do. You can also give them your television or company ID badge. Cryptocurrency is no different. Most of the crypto scams are get rich quick schemes, which people have been getting scammed by since the invention of barter. What made cryptocurrency so susceptible to scams wasn't that people were in control, it was that some people were actually getting rich, which made others credulous, and that attracts con men. "We have to protect people from themselves" is only true for small children and the mentally ill. Adults get to make their own choices -- because there is no one else to make them. As soon as you appoint someone else to do it, that person has a conflict of interest and the incentive to defect, and the person affected needs the right to choose differently unless you can prove that this specific person is mentally incapable of exercising reason. "Nobody is ever completely reasonable" doesn't cut it because that applies to the gatekeepers too.
- johnnyanmac 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? I guess pigs fly or hell freezes over. Musk and Zuckerburg had years after such changes to make their own store on Android (which put in similar privacy policies at the same time as Apple). It doesn't make any sense for them because being off the main store is worse than gleeming off a bit more data to sell. >I have yet to hear a convincing argument (from multi-store proponents) about how to prevent this. How about proving that the subjects in question are on multiple stores to begin with, or otherwise have shown interest? You're questioning GDPR's validity, but your own premise isn't a thing to begin with.
- CogitoCogito 3y ago
  Why should that be prevented exactly? Why shouldn’t users be able to download apps directly from companies if they want to? Isn’t the whole point of the EU legislation to make all this possible?

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