4 ms·

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 equi

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
        No, that misunderstands things. The technical iOS features are a relatively small part of it (Yes, there's a user dialog you have to pop up to get an IDFA, that's great!). But apps COULD pretty trivially work around that. There are a million and one ways to fingerprint a user that don't rely on an IDFA and it's impossible to restrict that kind of activity through OS-level features alone (see: https://amiunique.org/ https://amiunique.org/ ). So why don't apps just work around it? Because they have to agree to terms with Apple and SAY that they won't. And then Apple has the power to kick them off the store if they do it anyway. In addition to that, they have to list what data they collect and what they do with it when they get it. Basically they have to make a bunch of pinky-promises. Some of those pinky-promises Apple just shows to the user as a list of "here's how this company is going to use your data". Other things are just forbidden outright. Whether a company can collect and sell certain kinds of my data to a third party is not something that can ever be controlled through an OS level feature.

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
      No, that misunderstands things. The technical iOS features are a relatively small part of it (Yes, there's a user dialog you have to pop up to get an IDFA, that's great!). But apps COULD pretty trivially work around that. There are a million and one ways to fingerprint a user that don't rely on an IDFA and it's impossible to restrict that kind of activity through OS-level features alone (see: https://amiunique.org/ https://amiunique.org/ ). So why don't apps just work around it? Because they have to agree to terms with Apple and SAY that they won't. And then Apple has the power to kick them off the store if they do it anyway. In addition to that, they have to list what data they collect and what they do with it when they get it. Basically they have to make a bunch of pinky-promises. Some of those pinky-promises Apple just shows to the user as a list of "here's how this company is going to use your data". Other things are just forbidden outright. Whether a company can collect and sell certain kinds of my data to a third party is not something that can ever be controlled through an OS level feature.