22 ms·

I like the app store, I like the restrictions, I don't want apple to change anything about it. I sort of think apple shouldn't try to comply with these sorts o

I like the app store, I like the restrictions, I don't want apple to change anything about it. I sort of think apple shouldn't try to comply with these sorts of potential lawsuits by making their app store worse, they should just let people jail break the phone and offer zero support for it. If people want to buy an iphone and shit it up, let them do it.

johnnyanmac 3y ago
Doubtful, Google got dinged pretty hard in part because there were too many steps to allow other app stores to exist, and becsuse app stores couldn't auto-update apps like Google Play could. And all that is way easier than rooting/jailbreaking. I doubt that will be enough of a deterrent considering the anti-trust angle being that you can't compete with apple's native software
- scarface_74 3y ago
  No Google got dinged because they claimed their ecosystem was “open” and changed it after the fact. The reason that Google lost the same type of cases that Apple won was because consumers knew iOS was closed before they bought it.
pchristensen 3y ago
I'm sure this comment will get downvoted and dunked on, but I agree and I would be that if Apple is forced to make changes like these, many peoples' only experience of it would be their iPhone/Apple Watch/etc getting worse. Some examples: - A lot of these changes are like mandating that cars have a manual transmission option. Sure, there are plenty of people that love the control, but there are many, many more that appreciate not having to deal with it. - Every dollar and engineering hour that Apple spends complying with these new requirements is time they won't spend on things people actually want, as well as increasing the surface area for bugs and security holes. - Apple is the intermediary between other companies like FB, Google, ad networks, data harvesting, government apps, etc. They can't do things on my phone because Apple forbids it. The more Apple is forced to open up, the less protection I have from other powerful players in the tech market. - Every place where Apple is forced to open up is a place where there's a choice that many users didn't ask for but will have to make (e.g. default browser). - I've never had to help a relative with their phone. I've had many of them come to me for help with their computers. Their and my experience with computing platforms is worse without the guardrails I think many computer savvy people don't realize how freeing and liberating it is for normal people to have an "appliance" computer.
- epolanski 3y ago
  Explain how. This seems a baseless statement.
- jedimind 3y ago
  nothing changes for you, keep living in apple prison. how does other people having more choice make your experience worse? all arguments I heard so far are completely far fetched and contrived scenarios that dont amount to anything but fear mongering.
- jedimind 3y ago
  Every time I refresh you keep adding more contrived BS excuses to allow the trillion dollar company to keep extorting devs and users with obscene fees. " - A lot of these changes are like mandating that cars have a manual transmission option. Sure, there are plenty of people that love the control, but there are many, many more that appreciate not having to deal with it." Nonsense analogy. Computers are General Purpose Computing Devices which people increasingly depend on in their lives where single point of control from Apple makes their lives artificially more difficult solely for the purpose of being able to squeeze out profits. It increases prices for consumers and allows oppressive dictatorships to demand certain apps to be removed and Apple always complies, leaving users without alternatives. " - Every dollar and engineering hour that Apple spends complying with these new requirements is time they won't spend on things people actually want, as well as increasing the surface area for bugs and security holes." Boohoo, the trillion dollar company has to do a little more work. They could just stop putting so much work into anti-consumer propaganda so they would have more time for actual work. "- Apple is the intermediary between other companies like FB, Google, ad networks, data harvesting, government apps, etc. They can't do things on my phone because Apple forbids it. The more Apple is forced to open up, the less protection I have from other powerful players in the tech market." This is exactly the kind of exaggerated, fear mongering narrative I've expected. Increased competition and openness could also lead to better privacy and security solutions as companies would need to compete on these features to win over users. Also, despite Apple's policies and safeguards, there have been instances where apps have found ways around these limitations or have used data in ways that are not transparent to users, because Apple only cares about Privacy as far as it benefits their bottom line, that why Apple also started to work on an advertising platform. They care about "Privacy" because now they can exclusively monetize user data.[Apple is becoming an ad company despite privacy claims - https://proton.me/blog/apple-ad-company https://proton.me/blog/apple-ad-company] " - Every place where Apple is forced to open up is a place where there's a choice that many users didn't ask for but will have to make (e.g. default browser)." Nonsense, the only thing that changes is that other people can change the default app, so when they don't care nothing changes for them, they don't have to do anything. this argument of yours is the kind of absurd reach that makes your overall position look absurd. " - I've never had to help a relative with their phone. I've had many of them come to me for help with their computers. Their and my experience with computing platforms is worse without the guardrails" I've read this meme so many times and every time I read it I doubt that it's an actual thing instead it's something you desperately need to say in order to uphold your indefensible position of defending Apple's anti-competitive practices. It's not a good argument either, just because your relatives are incompetent we all should suffer under that? " I think many computer savvy people don't realize how freeing and liberating it is for normal people to have an "appliance" computer." Ah yes, less choice is actually more choice, slavery is freedom and war is peace.
bradgessler 3y ago
I want iOS to be like macOS in that there's one "blessed" store, but I can sell, distribute, and install apps outside of it without giving Apple a cut. macOS has proven for decades that a reasonably proprietary OS can be distributed and kept reasonably secure when apps are installed on it outside of an App Store. There's even third-party App Stores on macOS like Steam, Homebrew, and a few more that Indie developers use to distribute apps.
- dmix 3y ago
  > , but I can sell, distribute, and install apps outside of it without giving Apple a cut. I want this personally for me. But I paid extra money to get my mom an iPhone exactly because she won't be able to stuff like this. I used to regularly have to fix her android phone and the last time she was trying to download an app for tracking hours at work, and somehow downloaded the wrong app with a similar name, this app loaded with 3 different pop ups telling her to install other ad filled apps with generic names like "PDF reader". OP is right, it should be an explicit jailbreaking process that has a technical barrier to entry where my mom can't be talked into doing it over the phone but an enterprising young person could figure it out.
  - Difwif 3y ago
    Are you suggesting your Mom has/would have the same experience on macOS? For whatever reason it doesn't seem to be as much of an issue. It probably doesn't need to be as cumbersome as a jailbreak. Maybe it's just a "Allow apps not approved by Apple" toggle hidden deep in the settings. I actually would love the ability to set "IT administrator account" on device setup. Then mom can't even change the setting without notifying "dmix" :)
  - jkestner 3y ago
    There are plenty of junk apps in the App Store now. Apple does a good job marketing trustworthiness, but having competing app stores may at least get them to put more effort into backing it up.
    - 3y ago
engeljohnb 3y ago
Do you prefer not being able to send or recieve good quality images and videos to anyone using Android?
- insaneirish 3y ago
  > Do you prefer not being able to send or recieve good quality images and videos to anyone using Android? Bit confused by this. What prevents me from sending or receiving good quality images to/from Android users?
  - ripdog 3y ago
    By default was missing from the sentence. You can do it with Whatsapp etc, but both you and the other party need to download a 3rd party app to do so.
    - insaneirish 3y ago
      > By default was missing from the sentence. You can do it with Whatsapp etc, but both you and the other party need to download a 3rd party app to do so. So... what?
      - vineyardlabs 3y ago
        I think the point is that it's kind not entirely accurate to say that Apple doesn't allow messaging interoperability with Android. They in-fact do through dozens of available third party apps. They don't allow non-apple devices to implement the iMessage protocol, which could be argued to be anti-consumer but it's not really evidence of apple being a monopoly. Edit: Just realized that you I misread your comment and you and I agree
      - Salgat 3y ago
        It's an obvious abuse of their monopoly to suppress competition. Most kids use iPhone and for the general public in the US iPhone has >50% market share, so to expect most people to stop using iMessage to get better support with Android users is not happening, and it's silly to think that will change without a change in laws, so most kids end up getting iPhones so they're not left out. Remember, this is all a very arbitrary restriction by Apple that lets them take advantage of their monopoly to suppress sales of competitive products. That's the illegal part.
idle_zealot 3y ago
I am very pro-users-owning-their-computers, which makes me highly critical of Apple's behavior. However, these sorts of lawsuits or regulations that seek to force Apple to change App Store policies feel so wrong-headed and out of touch. The problem with Apple is not that they take a 30% cut of app sales in their store, or that they don't allow alternative browser engines or wallets apps or superapps or whatever in their store. It's their store and they ought to be able to curate it however they like. The problem is that users cannot reasonably install software through any means other than that single store. The problem is that Apple reserves special permissions and system integrations for their own apps and denies them to anyone else. That is not an acceptable way for a computer to work.
- paulddraper 3y ago
  Isn't that exactly what the EU went after? They didn't tell Apple not to charge 30% for their App Store. They can charge 90% for all they care. They told Apple they mustn't block other installation methods.
  - idle_zealot 3y ago
    Sort of. My reading of the DMA is basically what you're saying; Apple has to let people install what they want on their phones, Apple cannot self-preference with app capabilities. Apple is planning to comply not by allowing users to install what they want on their devices, but instead by offering companies an avenue to enter a business relationship with Apple through which Apple will allow users install that company's applications, provided that Apple has vetted and signed them. That is, all told Apple still has final say over what apps are allowed on peoples' phones. It sounds like the EC is going to nix those app-signing requirements, but the rest of the scheme may or may not be deemed acceptable. So the question remains whether the spirit of the DMA is "users should be able to install the software they want on their computers" or "businesses offering apps and services should be able to compete with Apple on the iPhone". Is this a fundamentally a pro-user law or a pro-business law? There may be overlap, but they are not the same.
  - Hikikomori 3y ago
mirzap 3y ago
Is Macbook less secure because I can install whatever app I want, even my own app? No, it's not. I want to be able to do the same with my iPhone. It's as simple as that.
- kbf 3y ago
  Yes it is, it just isn’t as big of a target for bad actors because it’s a much less personal device with way fewer users.
- vlunkr 3y ago
  Well, yes, it is less secure. Though Apple has been adding more restrictions around apps having full disk access and stuff.
  - kelthuzad 3y ago
    And yet no one would ever want or think of locking down MacOS like they have locked down iOS. Turns out that grown ups don't need Apple to babysit them for additional "security" when everybody knows that Apple's real reason is just money+greed and the "security" talking point is just a convenient smokescreen.
    - jhbadger 3y ago
      I wouldn't want it, but I can see both Apple and heads of a lot of IT departments loving the concept of a locked-down MacOS.
      - kelthuzad 3y ago
        That's a completely different scenario and those IT departments already have their own mechanisms of enforcing lockdowns, they wouldn't want others to impose lockdowns on them (the administrators) too. For devs, such an Apple imposed lockdown on MacOS would destroy the Macbook's popularity, since it would regress and turn into a glorified ipad.
      - pjerem 3y ago
jedimind 3y ago
if you like your prison, that's your thing, you have the right to stay in it, just don't force other people to live in misery under your preferences when they'd rather live in freedom. we also have rules and regulations which decide if something is lawful or not, so it's not just about what you personally like or not.
- dpkonofa 3y ago
  No one is forcing anyone to buy an iPhone. You still have that choice, you just want to force someone else to make another choice. It's hypocritical.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
_yb2s 3y ago
I like the iPhone in general but there’s a ton of things I need to keep an old Android around for, because of functionality apple blocks for no good reason: connecting to many non approved bluetooth devices, vehicle gauges and other useful driving data in carplay, etc.
vlunkr 3y ago
None of these require allowing alternative app stores. Just allowing more apps in. You don’t have to use these apps, and theres nothing inherently insecure about it.
epolanski 3y ago
You know that nobody forces you to use features you don't want to, right?
drdaeman 3y ago
> they should just let people jail break the phone and offer zero support for it That would be significantly more fair to the end users than the current status quo, if they won't intentionally make obstacles for those users. Obviously, that's not happening.
- astrange 3y ago
  Note there could easily be even more obstacles than there are. Third party apps like banking apps actually have extra jailbreaking checks; first party apps don't, you can still watch DRM movies, and afaik it doesn't void the warranty. At least not if nobody notices.
crmd 3y ago
Same here. I use linux VMs and containers for all my "hacking" where I need total control and customizability of the OS. On my workstation and phone, where I do my banking and read emails, I'm willing to trade control and customizability for an extremely locked down high trust operating environment. I feel like Apple's closed ecosystem, despite all its flaws, gets this compromise right.
- paulddraper 3y ago
  You don't do banking on a laptop?
  - cmorgan31 3y ago
    Not often, no. What’s banking in this context mean for you? I’m assuming viewing accounts and depositing checks?
    - loup-vaillant 3y ago
      Exclusively, yes. Except for that second factor authentication they forced me to install on my phone (without which doing online payments would be a pain). I like and trust my Ubuntu laptop. I do avoid Windows for those things, though.
  - astrange 3y ago
    Do banks have mobile check deposit on a laptop? I don't think mine does.
  - vundercind 3y ago
    Nerd here who started on MS-DOS and later spent nearly a decade running Linux on a laptop as my main computing device. Gentoo, for about half that time. Various other stuff in between, developed software targeting probably a seven or eight different operating systems and/or platforms, et c., et c. I've got a reasonable amount of computer-dork cred, is the point, though around these parts, nothing all that remarkable. Very nearly every halfway serious computer-involved activity I do these days (=last seven or eight years) that matters in my actual, real life takes place on my phone, including approximately all banking. All the other computers—even the "real" ones—in my life are basically toys. 90% of my real-life important or meaningful stuff I do with computers happens on my phone, 9% on a tablet, and at-most 1% on everything else. (in my personal life, I mean—unfortunately I still have to try to use "real" computers to accomplish allegedly-important things at work)
DANmode 3y ago
> offer zero support for it. If only they had it left it there.
mullingitover 3y ago
> they should just let people jail break the phone and offer zero support for it. Just let people wipe the phone completely - no drivers, no kernel, nothing, and bring their own. That's the proper solution to people wanting to own their hardware and do whatever they want with it. Want to install a different app store/browser/etc? Go for it, start by installing the new kernel and drivers.
paulddraper 3y ago
That is the right way to think about it. If your walled garden (App Store) is really better, people will stay in it voluntarily.
interactivecode 3y ago
If they would only verify quality and provide safe APIs and paths to safely integrate they can have their platform. The issue is that they are both managing the plantform and (unfairly) participating themselves. If they had one set of APIs for smartwatches that can be used by them for the apple watch and everyone else for their smartwatches they wouldn’t get sued. But instead they give themselves deep integration into the OS and limit everyone elses access. When you are one of the only available platforms thats not okay.
Andrex 3y ago
> If people want to buy an iphone and shit it up, let them do it. The next generation isn't necessarily choosing, though. Their parents are giving into their demands for *an iPhone due to social pressures entirely originated by Apple's monopolistic behavior (iMessage green bubbles). Then, when they're locked into the Apple ecosystem from the start, it's almost impossible to break out -- even if you grow up into a mature adult that doesn't give a shit about bubble colors. Interoperability (being able to exit an ecosystem without massive downsides, specifically) between the only two parties in a de facto duopoly is absolutely necessary and morally right, and it's a shame market failures force the judiciary to intervene. But we are where we are and there's no use putting lipstick on a pig -- the system as it stands is broken, and if left alone will feed on itself and become even more broken.
- thirdsun 3y ago
  > Their parents are giving into their demands for *an iPhone due to social pressures entirely originated by Apple's monopolistic behavior (iMessage green bubbles). First of all, we don't have that problem here in europe. People just use cross-platform messengers. Secondly, I don't understand why a company should be forced to bring its service to a platform it doesn't care about. Apple supports the default carrier messaging standards (SMS/MMS). It's not Apple's fault that they suck. In fact Apple explicitely created iMessage because SMS/MMS were absolutely terrible. If RCS is considered a standard (is it?), then Apple should absolutely support it and apparently they plan to do so. Seems fine to me. While I personally don't use iMessage I'd prefer it if the service was available everywhere, but I don't see why Apple should be forced to support other platforms. Just because iMessage is popular? Imagine a world where WhatsApp was either an iOS- or Android-exclusive app. Should they be forced to develop for a platform they don't care about too? What about popular iOS-exclusive apps like Things? What about Garageband or Logic? Or Super Mario games on Nintendo?
  - shultays 3y ago
    > Their parents are giving into their demands for *an iPhone due to social pressures entirely originated by Apple's monopolistic behavior (iMessage green bubbles). First of all, we don't have that problem here in europe We also have a smaller percentage of iPhone users here in Europe. Apple could have open up their API. Or not try to shut it down so hard when someone finds a way around to use their API
Salgat 3y ago
That's the biggest thing, allowing sideloading is 100% optional and lets people stay in the walled garden if they want. Apple not allowing it is absolutely about suppressing competition, which given their >50% market share is a blatant abuse of their monopoly.
- ok_dad 3y ago
  I can’t wait for every data hoarding app (Facebook, Reddit, Google) to require sideloading so now we’ll have the choice to either use Android or Apple when being tracked down to granular details. I want it to be semi onerous to enable apps outside the App Store, for this reason.
  - pjerem 3y ago
    The real question is : is it Apple’s role to protect people against Facebook or Google ? I mean, if you want to be protected against Facebook, just delete the app. It’s the role of regulators to stop data hoarding. Also this narrative is complete bullshit from Apple since those protections never came from App Store’s policies enforcement but from iOS sandboxing mechanisms which are not going to disappear for sideloaded apps. I’m pretty amazed that on HN, of all the places, people still believe the narrative that the Apple reviewing process can enforce app behavior while all they’ve got to review is a binary. The App Store reviewing is just there to check if you are loyal into Apple.
    - squeaky-clean 3y ago
      > It’s the role of regulators to stop data hoarding. Okay well they can stop Apple's enforcement of their tracking policies after they make regulations against data hoarding. Not beforehand leaving us with the only choices of be tracked or give up on the app entirely when we currently have a third option to use apps without accurate tracking. > I’m pretty amazed that on HN, of all the places, people still believe the narrative that the Apple reviewing process can enforce app behavior while all they’ve got to review is a binary. You don't need to believe Apple. You can believe all the ad companies revenue dropping by 30% for mobile users the quarter after Apple rolled out the tracking changes. There's a reason all these apps began you to click yes before showing the iOS system popup for tracking permissions.
ken47 3y ago
> I sort of think apple shouldn't try to comply I know some of us like to think of Apple as some kind of corporate diety, but even Apple has to answer to the US government.
feyman_r 3y ago
Does this chain of thought apply to any company or just to Apple? At what market share does this become a problem in your opinion? Or are we assuming that the market is ‘free’ and people wouldn’t buy such a device/service because of these ‘restrictions’?
covercash 3y ago
I agree with this take. My one concern is it has the potential to diminish the entire brand. Even with giant warnings about losing warranty/support when installing 3rd party app stores or side loading apps, at the end of the day the back of the phone has a big Apple logo on it. So when the customer fucks it up and Apple refuses to fix it, they’ll still blame Apple.
- leptons 3y ago
  Apple's hardware house of cards might come down if developers are allowed to push the devices past what Apple allows due to form-over-function design decisions they make, and I'm okay with that.
- rustymonday 3y ago
  If consumers find that's a problem, then they should be willing to pay the 30% premium in the app store. My guess is that this is not as much of an issue as Apple claims, and this 30% premium will not be worth it to the consumer.
  - josephg 3y ago
    I think plenty of software development companies quite like to keep that 30% to themselves. I could imagine Microsoft, Adobe and others refusing to ship their software on the app store at all if using their own store let them keep more of the purchase price.
- lagadu 3y ago
  If you're concerned about the brand value then sell your stock before it happens or buy some put options at a nice price.
gxs 3y ago
Yeah exactly, for some of us this is a feature not a bug. And I say this as a customer that also supports open source software. Yes it's possible to support both. Like damn, what if I intend to build this ecosystem from the outset, does that mean as soon as it reaches critical mass the government is going to come in and dismantle it? It's bullshit. This is essentially saying you're not allowed to build ecosystems. Consumer products don't demand the same flexibility in this regard that enterprise products do. This is just other companies crying that they want a slice of the pie.
- lagadu 3y ago
  Companies are not allowed to leverage their dominant market position in one market in order to gain an advantage in other markets. If you dislike monopoly and antitrust laws, go vote against them.
  - gxs 3y ago
    I’m familiar with the concept and it doesn’t apply as clearly as you make it seem to here, which is why it’s taken so long to sue Apple. Their ecosystem was closed from the beginning.
doctorpangloss 3y ago
> I like the app store, I like the restrictions, I don't want apple to change anything about it. This is basically saying you only use TikTok, Facebook, Instagram, YouTube, Spotify, Tinder, Gmail, Google Maps, and play zero to some handful of mega huge F2P games. Why have an App Store at all then? You don't use it. It's an installation wizard for you, not a store. Don't you see? This stuff doesn't interact with restrictions at all. The problem with the App Store is that it sucks, not that it's restricted. > making their app store worse I've heard this take from so many people. It is already as bad as it gets. The App Store is an utter disaster. They have failed in every aspect to make a thriving ecosystem. It is just the absolute largest, hugest, best capitalized, least innovative apps and games. This doesn't have to be the case at all. Look at Steam. Even Linux package managers have more diversity with more apps that thrive.
- NoPicklez 3y ago
  For your first point that is a fairly wild accusation of that user. For me, one of the features of a centralised app store is that I buy and subscribe to apps through the app store, which centralises my app subscriptions within my Apple account. I wouldn't have this functionality if I was pulling in apps outside of the app store. I can go into my Apple account and see every subscription I have and cancel it from within. No shoddy dark website behavior that makes it hard to unsubscribe, I can do it all there. This just one feature that I find handy in having a single store.
  - idle_zealot 3y ago
    If Apple had your best interests in mind they would provide a way to integrate third party payment systems into their management interface so all apps could expose their subscriptions to the user in a consistent way regardless of payment backend. Instead they will keep it as an exclusive feature and point to other processors' lack of compatibility as a harm to end-users inflicted by the DMA. They would rather have a talking point in their ongoing temper tantrum than provide a good experience for their users.
    - 3y ago
wiseowise 3y ago
Stay within store, nobody forces you to sideload or download certain apps.
- hightrix 3y ago
  You and I will do this. So will anyone else on HN. My grandma won’t understand the difference. So when she gets a text saying, hey install this cool new thing, and then gets hacked, these changes will be to blame. Why can’t we have a close ecosystem and an open ecosystem? If you want to side load, Android is right there ready for you.
  - wiseowise 3y ago
    How will she install it if it is behind security toggle?
    - dpkonofa 3y ago
      She'll change the toggle and then install it. It's obvious that a lot of HN users didn't live through the period of time where IE was overrun with toolbars for nearly every user because websites would walk people through how to override their security settings so that they could install all kinds of shit. BonzaiBuddy, Yahoo Toolbar, MacKeeper, etc... they all walk people through how to turn off the security settings needed to get themselves installed. That's the whole problem. People don't know any better so they follow the instructions to get what they think they want. They don't know what they don't know.
      - vundercind 3y ago
        You can definitely tell who has and has not done some for of tech support sort of job interacting with the general public, in these kinds of discussions. "But the user would NEVER do..." oh my god, not only would they, they would in large numbers, it wouldn't even be some super-rare occurrence. Nobody who's done that kind of work would type those words in that order. I was in such a role in the exact time period you're writing about. At the time, most computer users were still at least kinda enthusiasts, if not particularly well-educated on their new toy. It's no accident that ordinary people got seriously interested using computers for important things in their lives when smartphones came around, and especially the iPhone—phones are like computers that are 80% less rage-inducing utter shit, as far as normal folks are concerned. "Real" computers are horrible for a majority of people. Notoriously horrible, like, listen to people talk about how they interact with "real" computers and their attitudes toward them; they don't trust them at all and often hate them, to them they're like expensive bulky frustration-machines that barely make any sense, don't do very much (the pieces of crap can't even replace a pocket camera, what a joke), and break entirely at random and frequently.
nox101 3y ago
The suit is not about user choice between iPhone and Android. The suit is about control 60% of the digital market. Sure, a user can go buy a different phone. But, an App developer can not reasonable not support iPhone given it has 60% of the market and apple requires 30% of all digital transactions on that market. I agree people should be able to choose different things. But I also agree with the suit, that once someone gets in the position to control the market of 1000s and 1000s of companies, it's not longer just about user choice in phones. It's about the digital goods (apps/subscribtions/IaP) market itself.
bredren 3y ago
>If people want to buy an iphone and shit it up, let them do it. Those choices also affect me, though. Any shared albums, messages or other data I transmit with these users has a higher risk of being leaked. There's some security in knowing almost all phones are not jailbroken and thanks to regular os upgrades, have a pretty solid security floor. One way to handle this would be to decorate the comms ID, email / phone name whatever to show they aren't running a standard iOS. But I would want to know as easily as I do that messages I exchange with someone are going to an android device.
- tpmoney 3y ago
  >One way to handle this would be to decorate the comms ID, email / phone name whatever to show they aren't running a standard iOS. I shudder to imagine the headlines complaining about the "scarlet bubbles apple is using to shame freedom loving users" or whatever nonsense the media would scare up if they tried to do something like that.
clhodapp 3y ago
Mostly agree with this except for "... and offer zero support for it." Nope, that's covered by basic consumer protections. Apple still has to offer support if the user has issues that weren't likely to have been caused by the modifications. Your car maker doesn't get to refuse to honor your powertrain warranty just because you put in a custom stereo.
PenguinCoder 3y ago
It doesn't matter if you like it. It doesn't matter if you don't like it. What matters is their actions and behavior are against the law. It can be proven,/according to the US Gov.
namlem 3y ago
Yes exactly. If Apple allowed users to download alternative app stores or directly install apps, none of this would be a problem.
boplicity 3y ago
Here's my take on the App store: Almost none of the "free" apps are actually free. However, the App store makes it impossible to find this out without first supplying credit card information and installing the app, and possibly setting up an account with an app. It used to be great. Frankly, it's now abusive.

johnnyanmac 3y ago

Doubtful, Google got dinged pretty hard in part because there were too many steps to allow other app stores to exist, and becsuse app stores couldn't auto-update apps like Google Play could. And all that is way easier than rooting/jailbreaking. I doubt that will be enough of a deterrent considering the anti-trust angle being that you can't compete with apple's native software

scarface_74 3y ago
No Google got dinged because they claimed their ecosystem was “open” and changed it after the fact. The reason that Google lost the same type of cases that Apple won was because consumers knew iOS was closed before they bought it.

pchristensen 3y ago

I'm sure this comment will get downvoted and dunked on, but I agree and I would be that if Apple is forced to make changes like these, many peoples' only experience of it would be their iPhone/Apple Watch/etc getting worse. Some examples: - A lot of these changes are like mandating that cars have a manual transmission option. Sure, there are plenty of people that love the control, but there are many, many more that appreciate not having to deal with it. - Every dollar and engineering hour that Apple spends complying with these new requirements is time they won't spend on things people actually want, as well as increasing the surface area for bugs and security holes. - Apple is the intermediary between other companies like FB, Google, ad networks, data harvesting, government apps, etc. They can't do things on my phone because Apple forbids it. The more Apple is forced to open up, the less protection I have from other powerful players in the tech market. - Every place where Apple is forced to open up is a place where there's a choice that many users didn't ask for but will have to make (e.g. default browser). - I've never had to help a relative with their phone. I've had many of them come to me for help with their computers. Their and my experience with computing platforms is worse without the guardrails I think many computer savvy people don't realize how freeing and liberating it is for normal people to have an "appliance" computer.

epolanski 3y ago
Explain how. This seems a baseless statement.
jedimind 3y ago
nothing changes for you, keep living in apple prison. how does other people having more choice make your experience worse? all arguments I heard so far are completely far fetched and contrived scenarios that dont amount to anything but fear mongering.
jedimind 3y ago
Every time I refresh you keep adding more contrived BS excuses to allow the trillion dollar company to keep extorting devs and users with obscene fees. " - A lot of these changes are like mandating that cars have a manual transmission option. Sure, there are plenty of people that love the control, but there are many, many more that appreciate not having to deal with it." Nonsense analogy. Computers are General Purpose Computing Devices which people increasingly depend on in their lives where single point of control from Apple makes their lives artificially more difficult solely for the purpose of being able to squeeze out profits. It increases prices for consumers and allows oppressive dictatorships to demand certain apps to be removed and Apple always complies, leaving users without alternatives. " - Every dollar and engineering hour that Apple spends complying with these new requirements is time they won't spend on things people actually want, as well as increasing the surface area for bugs and security holes." Boohoo, the trillion dollar company has to do a little more work. They could just stop putting so much work into anti-consumer propaganda so they would have more time for actual work. "- Apple is the intermediary between other companies like FB, Google, ad networks, data harvesting, government apps, etc. They can't do things on my phone because Apple forbids it. The more Apple is forced to open up, the less protection I have from other powerful players in the tech market." This is exactly the kind of exaggerated, fear mongering narrative I've expected. Increased competition and openness could also lead to better privacy and security solutions as companies would need to compete on these features to win over users. Also, despite Apple's policies and safeguards, there have been instances where apps have found ways around these limitations or have used data in ways that are not transparent to users, because Apple only cares about Privacy as far as it benefits their bottom line, that why Apple also started to work on an advertising platform. They care about "Privacy" because now they can exclusively monetize user data.[Apple is becoming an ad company despite privacy claims - https://proton.me/blog/apple-ad-company https://proton.me/blog/apple-ad-company] " - Every place where Apple is forced to open up is a place where there's a choice that many users didn't ask for but will have to make (e.g. default browser)." Nonsense, the only thing that changes is that other people can change the default app, so when they don't care nothing changes for them, they don't have to do anything. this argument of yours is the kind of absurd reach that makes your overall position look absurd. " - I've never had to help a relative with their phone. I've had many of them come to me for help with their computers. Their and my experience with computing platforms is worse without the guardrails" I've read this meme so many times and every time I read it I doubt that it's an actual thing instead it's something you desperately need to say in order to uphold your indefensible position of defending Apple's anti-competitive practices. It's not a good argument either, just because your relatives are incompetent we all should suffer under that? " I think many computer savvy people don't realize how freeing and liberating it is for normal people to have an "appliance" computer." Ah yes, less choice is actually more choice, slavery is freedom and war is peace.

bradgessler 3y ago

I want iOS to be like macOS in that there's one "blessed" store, but I can sell, distribute, and install apps outside of it without giving Apple a cut. macOS has proven for decades that a reasonably proprietary OS can be distributed and kept reasonably secure when apps are installed on it outside of an App Store. There's even third-party App Stores on macOS like Steam, Homebrew, and a few more that Indie developers use to distribute apps.

dmix 3y ago
> , but I can sell, distribute, and install apps outside of it without giving Apple a cut. I want this personally for me. But I paid extra money to get my mom an iPhone exactly because she won't be able to stuff like this. I used to regularly have to fix her android phone and the last time she was trying to download an app for tracking hours at work, and somehow downloaded the wrong app with a similar name, this app loaded with 3 different pop ups telling her to install other ad filled apps with generic names like "PDF reader". OP is right, it should be an explicit jailbreaking process that has a technical barrier to entry where my mom can't be talked into doing it over the phone but an enterprising young person could figure it out.
- Difwif 3y ago
  Are you suggesting your Mom has/would have the same experience on macOS? For whatever reason it doesn't seem to be as much of an issue. It probably doesn't need to be as cumbersome as a jailbreak. Maybe it's just a "Allow apps not approved by Apple" toggle hidden deep in the settings. I actually would love the ability to set "IT administrator account" on device setup. Then mom can't even change the setting without notifying "dmix" :)
- jkestner 3y ago
  There are plenty of junk apps in the App Store now. Apple does a good job marketing trustworthiness, but having competing app stores may at least get them to put more effort into backing it up.
  - 3y ago

engeljohnb 3y ago

Do you prefer not being able to send or recieve good quality images and videos to anyone using Android?

insaneirish 3y ago
> Do you prefer not being able to send or recieve good quality images and videos to anyone using Android? Bit confused by this. What prevents me from sending or receiving good quality images to/from Android users?
- ripdog 3y ago
  By default was missing from the sentence. You can do it with Whatsapp etc, but both you and the other party need to download a 3rd party app to do so.
  - insaneirish 3y ago
    > By default was missing from the sentence. You can do it with Whatsapp etc, but both you and the other party need to download a 3rd party app to do so. So... what?
    - vineyardlabs 3y ago
      I think the point is that it's kind not entirely accurate to say that Apple doesn't allow messaging interoperability with Android. They in-fact do through dozens of available third party apps. They don't allow non-apple devices to implement the iMessage protocol, which could be argued to be anti-consumer but it's not really evidence of apple being a monopoly. Edit: Just realized that you I misread your comment and you and I agree
    - Salgat 3y ago
      It's an obvious abuse of their monopoly to suppress competition. Most kids use iPhone and for the general public in the US iPhone has >50% market share, so to expect most people to stop using iMessage to get better support with Android users is not happening, and it's silly to think that will change without a change in laws, so most kids end up getting iPhones so they're not left out. Remember, this is all a very arbitrary restriction by Apple that lets them take advantage of their monopoly to suppress sales of competitive products. That's the illegal part.

idle_zealot 3y ago

I am very pro-users-owning-their-computers, which makes me highly critical of Apple's behavior. However, these sorts of lawsuits or regulations that seek to force Apple to change App Store policies feel so wrong-headed and out of touch. The problem with Apple is not that they take a 30% cut of app sales in their store, or that they don't allow alternative browser engines or wallets apps or superapps or whatever in their store. It's their store and they ought to be able to curate it however they like. The problem is that users cannot reasonably install software through any means other than that single store. The problem is that Apple reserves special permissions and system integrations for their own apps and denies them to anyone else. That is not an acceptable way for a computer to work.

paulddraper 3y ago
Isn't that exactly what the EU went after? They didn't tell Apple not to charge 30% for their App Store. They can charge 90% for all they care. They told Apple they mustn't block other installation methods.
- idle_zealot 3y ago
  Sort of. My reading of the DMA is basically what you're saying; Apple has to let people install what they want on their phones, Apple cannot self-preference with app capabilities. Apple is planning to comply not by allowing users to install what they want on their devices, but instead by offering companies an avenue to enter a business relationship with Apple through which Apple will allow users install that company's applications, provided that Apple has vetted and signed them. That is, all told Apple still has final say over what apps are allowed on peoples' phones. It sounds like the EC is going to nix those app-signing requirements, but the rest of the scheme may or may not be deemed acceptable. So the question remains whether the spirit of the DMA is "users should be able to install the software they want on their computers" or "businesses offering apps and services should be able to compete with Apple on the iPhone". Is this a fundamentally a pro-user law or a pro-business law? There may be overlap, but they are not the same.
- Hikikomori 3y ago

mirzap 3y ago

Is Macbook less secure because I can install whatever app I want, even my own app? No, it's not. I want to be able to do the same with my iPhone. It's as simple as that.

kbf 3y ago
Yes it is, it just isn’t as big of a target for bad actors because it’s a much less personal device with way fewer users.
vlunkr 3y ago
Well, yes, it is less secure. Though Apple has been adding more restrictions around apps having full disk access and stuff.
- kelthuzad 3y ago
  And yet no one would ever want or think of locking down MacOS like they have locked down iOS. Turns out that grown ups don't need Apple to babysit them for additional "security" when everybody knows that Apple's real reason is just money+greed and the "security" talking point is just a convenient smokescreen.
  - jhbadger 3y ago
    I wouldn't want it, but I can see both Apple and heads of a lot of IT departments loving the concept of a locked-down MacOS.
    - kelthuzad 3y ago
      That's a completely different scenario and those IT departments already have their own mechanisms of enforcing lockdowns, they wouldn't want others to impose lockdowns on them (the administrators) too. For devs, such an Apple imposed lockdown on MacOS would destroy the Macbook's popularity, since it would regress and turn into a glorified ipad.
    - pjerem 3y ago

jedimind 3y ago

if you like your prison, that's your thing, you have the right to stay in it, just don't force other people to live in misery under your preferences when they'd rather live in freedom. we also have rules and regulations which decide if something is lawful or not, so it's not just about what you personally like or not.

dpkonofa 3y ago
No one is forcing anyone to buy an iPhone. You still have that choice, you just want to force someone else to make another choice. It's hypocritical.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]

_yb2s 3y ago

I like the iPhone in general but there’s a ton of things I need to keep an old Android around for, because of functionality apple blocks for no good reason: connecting to many non approved bluetooth devices, vehicle gauges and other useful driving data in carplay, etc.

vlunkr 3y ago

None of these require allowing alternative app stores. Just allowing more apps in. You don’t have to use these apps, and theres nothing inherently insecure about it.

epolanski 3y ago

You know that nobody forces you to use features you don't want to, right?

drdaeman 3y ago

> they should just let people jail break the phone and offer zero support for it That would be significantly more fair to the end users than the current status quo, if they won't intentionally make obstacles for those users. Obviously, that's not happening.

astrange 3y ago
Note there could easily be even more obstacles than there are. Third party apps like banking apps actually have extra jailbreaking checks; first party apps don't, you can still watch DRM movies, and afaik it doesn't void the warranty. At least not if nobody notices.

crmd 3y ago

Same here. I use linux VMs and containers for all my "hacking" where I need total control and customizability of the OS. On my workstation and phone, where I do my banking and read emails, I'm willing to trade control and customizability for an extremely locked down high trust operating environment. I feel like Apple's closed ecosystem, despite all its flaws, gets this compromise right.

paulddraper 3y ago
You don't do banking on a laptop?
- cmorgan31 3y ago
  Not often, no. What’s banking in this context mean for you? I’m assuming viewing accounts and depositing checks?
  - loup-vaillant 3y ago
    Exclusively, yes. Except for that second factor authentication they forced me to install on my phone (without which doing online payments would be a pain). I like and trust my Ubuntu laptop. I do avoid Windows for those things, though.
- astrange 3y ago
  Do banks have mobile check deposit on a laptop? I don't think mine does.
- vundercind 3y ago
  Nerd here who started on MS-DOS and later spent nearly a decade running Linux on a laptop as my main computing device. Gentoo, for about half that time. Various other stuff in between, developed software targeting probably a seven or eight different operating systems and/or platforms, et c., et c. I've got a reasonable amount of computer-dork cred, is the point, though around these parts, nothing all that remarkable. Very nearly every halfway serious computer-involved activity I do these days (=last seven or eight years) that matters in my actual, real life takes place on my phone, including approximately all banking. All the other computers—even the "real" ones—in my life are basically toys. 90% of my real-life important or meaningful stuff I do with computers happens on my phone, 9% on a tablet, and at-most 1% on everything else. (in my personal life, I mean—unfortunately I still have to try to use "real" computers to accomplish allegedly-important things at work)

DANmode 3y ago

> offer zero support for it. If only they had it left it there.

mullingitover 3y ago

> they should just let people jail break the phone and offer zero support for it. Just let people wipe the phone completely - no drivers, no kernel, nothing, and bring their own. That's the proper solution to people wanting to own their hardware and do whatever they want with it. Want to install a different app store/browser/etc? Go for it, start by installing the new kernel and drivers.

paulddraper 3y ago

That is the right way to think about it. If your walled garden (App Store) is really better, people will stay in it voluntarily.

interactivecode 3y ago

If they would only verify quality and provide safe APIs and paths to safely integrate they can have their platform. The issue is that they are both managing the plantform and (unfairly) participating themselves. If they had one set of APIs for smartwatches that can be used by them for the apple watch and everyone else for their smartwatches they wouldn’t get sued. But instead they give themselves deep integration into the OS and limit everyone elses access. When you are one of the only available platforms thats not okay.

Andrex 3y ago

> If people want to buy an iphone and shit it up, let them do it. The next generation isn't necessarily choosing, though. Their parents are giving into their demands for *an iPhone due to social pressures entirely originated by Apple's monopolistic behavior (iMessage green bubbles). Then, when they're locked into the Apple ecosystem from the start, it's almost impossible to break out -- even if you grow up into a mature adult that doesn't give a shit about bubble colors. Interoperability (being able to exit an ecosystem without massive downsides, specifically) between the only two parties in a de facto duopoly is absolutely necessary and morally right, and it's a shame market failures force the judiciary to intervene. But we are where we are and there's no use putting lipstick on a pig -- the system as it stands is broken, and if left alone will feed on itself and become even more broken.

thirdsun 3y ago
> Their parents are giving into their demands for *an iPhone due to social pressures entirely originated by Apple's monopolistic behavior (iMessage green bubbles). First of all, we don't have that problem here in europe. People just use cross-platform messengers. Secondly, I don't understand why a company should be forced to bring its service to a platform it doesn't care about. Apple supports the default carrier messaging standards (SMS/MMS). It's not Apple's fault that they suck. In fact Apple explicitely created iMessage because SMS/MMS were absolutely terrible. If RCS is considered a standard (is it?), then Apple should absolutely support it and apparently they plan to do so. Seems fine to me. While I personally don't use iMessage I'd prefer it if the service was available everywhere, but I don't see why Apple should be forced to support other platforms. Just because iMessage is popular? Imagine a world where WhatsApp was either an iOS- or Android-exclusive app. Should they be forced to develop for a platform they don't care about too? What about popular iOS-exclusive apps like Things? What about Garageband or Logic? Or Super Mario games on Nintendo?
- shultays 3y ago
  > Their parents are giving into their demands for *an iPhone due to social pressures entirely originated by Apple's monopolistic behavior (iMessage green bubbles). First of all, we don't have that problem here in europe We also have a smaller percentage of iPhone users here in Europe. Apple could have open up their API. Or not try to shut it down so hard when someone finds a way around to use their API

Salgat 3y ago

That's the biggest thing, allowing sideloading is 100% optional and lets people stay in the walled garden if they want. Apple not allowing it is absolutely about suppressing competition, which given their >50% market share is a blatant abuse of their monopoly.

ok_dad 3y ago
I can’t wait for every data hoarding app (Facebook, Reddit, Google) to require sideloading so now we’ll have the choice to either use Android or Apple when being tracked down to granular details. I want it to be semi onerous to enable apps outside the App Store, for this reason.
- pjerem 3y ago
  The real question is : is it Apple’s role to protect people against Facebook or Google ? I mean, if you want to be protected against Facebook, just delete the app. It’s the role of regulators to stop data hoarding. Also this narrative is complete bullshit from Apple since those protections never came from App Store’s policies enforcement but from iOS sandboxing mechanisms which are not going to disappear for sideloaded apps. I’m pretty amazed that on HN, of all the places, people still believe the narrative that the Apple reviewing process can enforce app behavior while all they’ve got to review is a binary. The App Store reviewing is just there to check if you are loyal into Apple.
  - squeaky-clean 3y ago
    > It’s the role of regulators to stop data hoarding. Okay well they can stop Apple's enforcement of their tracking policies after they make regulations against data hoarding. Not beforehand leaving us with the only choices of be tracked or give up on the app entirely when we currently have a third option to use apps without accurate tracking. > I’m pretty amazed that on HN, of all the places, people still believe the narrative that the Apple reviewing process can enforce app behavior while all they’ve got to review is a binary. You don't need to believe Apple. You can believe all the ad companies revenue dropping by 30% for mobile users the quarter after Apple rolled out the tracking changes. There's a reason all these apps began you to click yes before showing the iOS system popup for tracking permissions.

ken47 3y ago

> I sort of think apple shouldn't try to comply I know some of us like to think of Apple as some kind of corporate diety, but even Apple has to answer to the US government.

feyman_r 3y ago

Does this chain of thought apply to any company or just to Apple? At what market share does this become a problem in your opinion? Or are we assuming that the market is ‘free’ and people wouldn’t buy such a device/service because of these ‘restrictions’?

covercash 3y ago

I agree with this take. My one concern is it has the potential to diminish the entire brand. Even with giant warnings about losing warranty/support when installing 3rd party app stores or side loading apps, at the end of the day the back of the phone has a big Apple logo on it. So when the customer fucks it up and Apple refuses to fix it, they’ll still blame Apple.

leptons 3y ago
Apple's hardware house of cards might come down if developers are allowed to push the devices past what Apple allows due to form-over-function design decisions they make, and I'm okay with that.
rustymonday 3y ago
If consumers find that's a problem, then they should be willing to pay the 30% premium in the app store. My guess is that this is not as much of an issue as Apple claims, and this 30% premium will not be worth it to the consumer.
- josephg 3y ago
  I think plenty of software development companies quite like to keep that 30% to themselves. I could imagine Microsoft, Adobe and others refusing to ship their software on the app store at all if using their own store let them keep more of the purchase price.
lagadu 3y ago
If you're concerned about the brand value then sell your stock before it happens or buy some put options at a nice price.

gxs 3y ago

Yeah exactly, for some of us this is a feature not a bug. And I say this as a customer that also supports open source software. Yes it's possible to support both. Like damn, what if I intend to build this ecosystem from the outset, does that mean as soon as it reaches critical mass the government is going to come in and dismantle it? It's bullshit. This is essentially saying you're not allowed to build ecosystems. Consumer products don't demand the same flexibility in this regard that enterprise products do. This is just other companies crying that they want a slice of the pie.

lagadu 3y ago
Companies are not allowed to leverage their dominant market position in one market in order to gain an advantage in other markets. If you dislike monopoly and antitrust laws, go vote against them.
- gxs 3y ago
  I’m familiar with the concept and it doesn’t apply as clearly as you make it seem to here, which is why it’s taken so long to sue Apple. Their ecosystem was closed from the beginning.

doctorpangloss 3y ago

> I like the app store, I like the restrictions, I don't want apple to change anything about it. This is basically saying you only use TikTok, Facebook, Instagram, YouTube, Spotify, Tinder, Gmail, Google Maps, and play zero to some handful of mega huge F2P games. Why have an App Store at all then? You don't use it. It's an installation wizard for you, not a store. Don't you see? This stuff doesn't interact with restrictions at all. The problem with the App Store is that it sucks, not that it's restricted. > making their app store worse I've heard this take from so many people. It is already as bad as it gets. The App Store is an utter disaster. They have failed in every aspect to make a thriving ecosystem. It is just the absolute largest, hugest, best capitalized, least innovative apps and games. This doesn't have to be the case at all. Look at Steam. Even Linux package managers have more diversity with more apps that thrive.

NoPicklez 3y ago
For your first point that is a fairly wild accusation of that user. For me, one of the features of a centralised app store is that I buy and subscribe to apps through the app store, which centralises my app subscriptions within my Apple account. I wouldn't have this functionality if I was pulling in apps outside of the app store. I can go into my Apple account and see every subscription I have and cancel it from within. No shoddy dark website behavior that makes it hard to unsubscribe, I can do it all there. This just one feature that I find handy in having a single store.
- idle_zealot 3y ago
  If Apple had your best interests in mind they would provide a way to integrate third party payment systems into their management interface so all apps could expose their subscriptions to the user in a consistent way regardless of payment backend. Instead they will keep it as an exclusive feature and point to other processors' lack of compatibility as a harm to end-users inflicted by the DMA. They would rather have a talking point in their ongoing temper tantrum than provide a good experience for their users.
  - 3y ago

wiseowise 3y ago

Stay within store, nobody forces you to sideload or download certain apps.

hightrix 3y ago
You and I will do this. So will anyone else on HN. My grandma won’t understand the difference. So when she gets a text saying, hey install this cool new thing, and then gets hacked, these changes will be to blame. Why can’t we have a close ecosystem and an open ecosystem? If you want to side load, Android is right there ready for you.
- wiseowise 3y ago
  How will she install it if it is behind security toggle?
  - dpkonofa 3y ago
    She'll change the toggle and then install it. It's obvious that a lot of HN users didn't live through the period of time where IE was overrun with toolbars for nearly every user because websites would walk people through how to override their security settings so that they could install all kinds of shit. BonzaiBuddy, Yahoo Toolbar, MacKeeper, etc... they all walk people through how to turn off the security settings needed to get themselves installed. That's the whole problem. People don't know any better so they follow the instructions to get what they think they want. They don't know what they don't know.
    - vundercind 3y ago
      You can definitely tell who has and has not done some for of tech support sort of job interacting with the general public, in these kinds of discussions. "But the user would NEVER do..." oh my god, not only would they, they would in large numbers, it wouldn't even be some super-rare occurrence. Nobody who's done that kind of work would type those words in that order. I was in such a role in the exact time period you're writing about. At the time, most computer users were still at least kinda enthusiasts, if not particularly well-educated on their new toy. It's no accident that ordinary people got seriously interested using computers for important things in their lives when smartphones came around, and especially the iPhone—phones are like computers that are 80% less rage-inducing utter shit, as far as normal folks are concerned. "Real" computers are horrible for a majority of people. Notoriously horrible, like, listen to people talk about how they interact with "real" computers and their attitudes toward them; they don't trust them at all and often hate them, to them they're like expensive bulky frustration-machines that barely make any sense, don't do very much (the pieces of crap can't even replace a pocket camera, what a joke), and break entirely at random and frequently.

nox101 3y ago

The suit is not about user choice between iPhone and Android. The suit is about control 60% of the digital market. Sure, a user can go buy a different phone. But, an App developer can not reasonable not support iPhone given it has 60% of the market and apple requires 30% of all digital transactions on that market. I agree people should be able to choose different things. But I also agree with the suit, that once someone gets in the position to control the market of 1000s and 1000s of companies, it's not longer just about user choice in phones. It's about the digital goods (apps/subscribtions/IaP) market itself.

bredren 3y ago

>If people want to buy an iphone and shit it up, let them do it. Those choices also affect me, though. Any shared albums, messages or other data I transmit with these users has a higher risk of being leaked. There's some security in knowing almost all phones are not jailbroken and thanks to regular os upgrades, have a pretty solid security floor. One way to handle this would be to decorate the comms ID, email / phone name whatever to show they aren't running a standard iOS. But I would want to know as easily as I do that messages I exchange with someone are going to an android device.

tpmoney 3y ago
>One way to handle this would be to decorate the comms ID, email / phone name whatever to show they aren't running a standard iOS. I shudder to imagine the headlines complaining about the "scarlet bubbles apple is using to shame freedom loving users" or whatever nonsense the media would scare up if they tried to do something like that.

clhodapp 3y ago

Mostly agree with this except for "... and offer zero support for it." Nope, that's covered by basic consumer protections. Apple still has to offer support if the user has issues that weren't likely to have been caused by the modifications. Your car maker doesn't get to refuse to honor your powertrain warranty just because you put in a custom stereo.

PenguinCoder 3y ago

It doesn't matter if you like it. It doesn't matter if you don't like it. What matters is their actions and behavior are against the law. It can be proven,/according to the US Gov.

namlem 3y ago

Yes exactly. If Apple allowed users to download alternative app stores or directly install apps, none of this would be a problem.

boplicity 3y ago

Here's my take on the App store: Almost none of the "free" apps are actually free. However, the App store makes it impossible to find this out without first supplying credit card information and installing the app, and possibly setting up an account with an app. It used to be great. Frankly, it's now abusive.