4 ms·

It would be interesting to know if there were ways regulation could promote new competitor businesses, instead of handicapping Apple. It seems to me that in a

It would be interesting to know if there were ways regulation could promote new competitor businesses, instead of handicapping Apple. It seems to me that in a healthier marketplace, Apple could argue that consumers were choosing them because their practices result in a better product. But in a duopoly (as with smartphone OSes), the argument rings hollow. It will be interesting to see where the courts rule, and where we decide the line between integration-for-better-UX and monopoly-enforcement is. I do wonder if that line would appear different if there were more competitors, and if there are additional, or creative ways that new competitors could be promoted.

Andrew_nenakhov 3y ago
Demanding sideloading is not handicapping in any measure. It is about removing a harmful and arbitrary restriction that Apple imposes on its users. It should not be up to Apple to decide which apps a user can run on their own device. (And don't even get me started on how Apple readily removes access to apps after demands from Putin's Government.)
- truculent 3y ago
  Yes, that change I wouldn’t call handicapping; although I’m sure Apple would. On the other hand, I think it’s reasonable to suggest that greater interoperability could result in some features being degraded or unavailable (maybe certain things happen slower, or consume more battery life, for example). We might still decide this is worth it overall, but it could genuinely handicap the UX.
  - aftbit 3y ago
    Really? Can you give an example? I don't see why performance or battery life would need to be impacted for users of the default services. In other words, if you want to keep using Apple-only stuff, you would get the same outcome as today.
- andrewla 3y ago
  On the one hand, as a developer, I agree with you. On the other hand, as a user, and one who has to do de facto IT support for my family, I strongly disagree. Having an off-store method of installing apps is just dangerous. You could argue that it's a question of Apple having an incomplete security model, in which they enforce through human review that apps do not perform malicious behavior. But Apple is just pretty good at this -- the rare app that slips through their net is usually quickly caught and killed, and their security on-first-use opt-ins "Allow this app to access your camera", along with enforcing that apps for whom the permission is denied must still function, is critical, compared to the Android "Allow this app to access all device state forever including private information and your entire DNA sequence" that you get on app install. On the gripping hand, advanced users, like developers, can basically sideload whatever the hell they want. The barrier here is a lot stronger than a checkbox in settings saying "allow sideloading apps" and thus is intrisically more difficult to access, and then only by people who know what they're doing anyway.
  - kibwen 3y ago
    > Having an off-store method of installing apps is just dangerous. I can't help but find this to be extremely infantilizing. The whole point of a democratic society is that we believe that we can educate people rather than relying on some authoritarian dictator to decide the limits of our freedoms. What you appear to be suggesting that your family is too stupid to be educated? Are you sure about that?
    - andrewla 3y ago
      I think my reply to the sibling comment covers most of this. But I am not suggesting that my family is too stupid -- rather, that the level of expertise required to safely determine whether a given app is safe to sideload is not only beyond the reach of a casual user, it's beyond the reach even of an experienced expert. Is my family too stupid to understand quantum field theory? I don't know -- maybe? Does the framing of "too stupid" make sense with that question?
      - archagon 3y ago

Andrew_nenakhov 3y ago

Demanding sideloading is not handicapping in any measure. It is about removing a harmful and arbitrary restriction that Apple imposes on its users. It should not be up to Apple to decide which apps a user can run on their own device. (And don't even get me started on how Apple readily removes access to apps after demands from Putin's Government.)

truculent 3y ago
Yes, that change I wouldn’t call handicapping; although I’m sure Apple would. On the other hand, I think it’s reasonable to suggest that greater interoperability could result in some features being degraded or unavailable (maybe certain things happen slower, or consume more battery life, for example). We might still decide this is worth it overall, but it could genuinely handicap the UX.
- aftbit 3y ago
  Really? Can you give an example? I don't see why performance or battery life would need to be impacted for users of the default services. In other words, if you want to keep using Apple-only stuff, you would get the same outcome as today.
andrewla 3y ago
On the one hand, as a developer, I agree with you. On the other hand, as a user, and one who has to do de facto IT support for my family, I strongly disagree. Having an off-store method of installing apps is just dangerous. You could argue that it's a question of Apple having an incomplete security model, in which they enforce through human review that apps do not perform malicious behavior. But Apple is just pretty good at this -- the rare app that slips through their net is usually quickly caught and killed, and their security on-first-use opt-ins "Allow this app to access your camera", along with enforcing that apps for whom the permission is denied must still function, is critical, compared to the Android "Allow this app to access all device state forever including private information and your entire DNA sequence" that you get on app install. On the gripping hand, advanced users, like developers, can basically sideload whatever the hell they want. The barrier here is a lot stronger than a checkbox in settings saying "allow sideloading apps" and thus is intrisically more difficult to access, and then only by people who know what they're doing anyway.
- kibwen 3y ago
  > Having an off-store method of installing apps is just dangerous. I can't help but find this to be extremely infantilizing. The whole point of a democratic society is that we believe that we can educate people rather than relying on some authoritarian dictator to decide the limits of our freedoms. What you appear to be suggesting that your family is too stupid to be educated? Are you sure about that?
  - andrewla 3y ago
    I think my reply to the sibling comment covers most of this. But I am not suggesting that my family is too stupid -- rather, that the level of expertise required to safely determine whether a given app is safe to sideload is not only beyond the reach of a casual user, it's beyond the reach even of an experienced expert. Is my family too stupid to understand quantum field theory? I don't know -- maybe? Does the framing of "too stupid" make sense with that question?
    - archagon 3y ago