4 ms·

How does other users' ability to install stuff outside of Apple's control impact your enjoyment of your devices?

endisneigh 2y ago
The general argument is that the changes end up being annoying. Simplest example would be 1st party apps only vs including 3rd party apps. Clearly there are implications around including 3rd party apps that would affect the operating system and thus user experience
- alt227 2y ago
  I never understand this argument. iPhones can still come with Safari installed and used by default, no changes to anyones experience at all. But if I want to go to the app store, install a different browser engine, and set it as default, how does that affect any users that are just using the default device as supplied to them? There is no reason at all to hinder this choice. It does not affect 1st party apps, or how the device works by default. It just allows choice for those who want to explore it.
  - robertfall 2y ago
    In the EU Safari is no longer used by default. You're forced to choose a browser when setting up the phone.
  - jstsch 2y ago
    > iPhones can still come with Safari installed and used by default, no changes to anyones experience at all. No, this is not allowed and currently also not the case. When you're setting up a new iPhone, one of the questions during setup is which browser do you want to use.
    - alt227 2y ago
      Then IMO this went too far. All they needed to do was allow people to doanload alternatives if they want them.
      - gbalduzzi 2y ago
        EU did this to Microsoft years ago to disrupt the internet explorer monopoly. It wouldn't be fair to not demand Apple and Google to do the same now
        alt227 2y ago
        I agree, except Windows had a massive PC monopoly back then. Apple doesnt have nearly that same monopoly today. It shares it with Google and in some markets it lags behind Googles user numbers.
        gbalduzzi 2y ago
        The point is to prevent monopoly from happening
  - endisneigh 2y ago
    Suppose there were a rule that there could be no defaults ever, and all of the apps are randomly arranged in the App Store for the sake of fairness. Your argument would be equally true, you could just scroll and scroll until you find the app you’re looking for, but surely you’d agree the experience would be worse?
  - slashdave 2y ago
    Because web sites will start using Chrome only features and stick a big box over the page insisting the user switch. Unless, of course, you want to pass complete control over web standards to Google.
- Novosell 2y ago
  That's not very clear to me. How would it affect anything?
  - endisneigh 2y ago
    If there were no 3rd party apps everything else could be coupled, no App Store, etc. Depending on particular user design goals, the experience could be far superior at the expense of being limited.
vsl 2y ago
See GDPR side effect of annoying banners everywhere even if I don't give a damn about my website visits information being processed, for how unintended consequences played out and made the web worse for everyone. For DMA specifically, see Apple withholding Screen Mirroring (a feature I would enjoy tremendously) from EU for fear (IMHO quite reasonable) that the vaguely written DMA could be interpreted as requiring them to open mirroring to 3rd parties. It's been just a few months and already DMA impacted my enjoyment of my devices, no?
- xandrius 2y ago
  Just for your info, the banners are absolutely not required and they are the band aid solution of websites who don't give a crap about their users. If you also don't care about yourself, it's worse for you but many others now have the chance to deny providers of their scummy way to make money off unwitting users.
  - shagie 2y ago
    Here is the home page of the European Union https://european-union.europa.eu/index_en https://european-union.europa.eu/index_en There is a banner. The European Commission on data protection https://commission.europa.eu/law/law-topic/data-protection_en https://commission.europa.eu/law/law-topic/data-protection_e... There is a banner. The press release for the current enforcement against Apple https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_24_3433 https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_24_... There is a banner. > the banners are absolutely not required and they are the band aid solution of websites who don't give a crap about their users. If this is true, it says a lot about the organization running those websites.
    - alt227 2y ago
      Parent is right, banners are not required by GDPR. These websites do not reflect the people in the organisations they represent, they are made by developers like the rest of us who are following the crowd like sheep.

The general argument is that the changes end up being annoying. Simplest example would be 1st party apps only vs including 3rd party apps. Clearly there are implications around including 3rd party apps that would affect the operating system and thus user experience

alt227 2y ago
I never understand this argument. iPhones can still come with Safari installed and used by default, no changes to anyones experience at all. But if I want to go to the app store, install a different browser engine, and set it as default, how does that affect any users that are just using the default device as supplied to them? There is no reason at all to hinder this choice. It does not affect 1st party apps, or how the device works by default. It just allows choice for those who want to explore it.
- robertfall 2y ago
  In the EU Safari is no longer used by default. You're forced to choose a browser when setting up the phone.
- jstsch 2y ago
  > iPhones can still come with Safari installed and used by default, no changes to anyones experience at all. No, this is not allowed and currently also not the case. When you're setting up a new iPhone, one of the questions during setup is which browser do you want to use.
  - alt227 2y ago
    Then IMO this went too far. All they needed to do was allow people to doanload alternatives if they want them.
    - gbalduzzi 2y ago
      EU did this to Microsoft years ago to disrupt the internet explorer monopoly. It wouldn't be fair to not demand Apple and Google to do the same now
      - alt227 2y ago
        I agree, except Windows had a massive PC monopoly back then. Apple doesnt have nearly that same monopoly today. It shares it with Google and in some markets it lags behind Googles user numbers.
        gbalduzzi 2y ago
        The point is to prevent monopoly from happening
- endisneigh 2y ago
  Suppose there were a rule that there could be no defaults ever, and all of the apps are randomly arranged in the App Store for the sake of fairness. Your argument would be equally true, you could just scroll and scroll until you find the app you’re looking for, but surely you’d agree the experience would be worse?
- slashdave 2y ago
  Because web sites will start using Chrome only features and stick a big box over the page insisting the user switch. Unless, of course, you want to pass complete control over web standards to Google.
Novosell 2y ago
That's not very clear to me. How would it affect anything?
- endisneigh 2y ago
  If there were no 3rd party apps everything else could be coupled, no App Store, etc. Depending on particular user design goals, the experience could be far superior at the expense of being limited.

vsl 2y ago

See GDPR side effect of annoying banners everywhere even if I don't give a damn about my website visits information being processed, for how unintended consequences played out and made the web worse for everyone. For DMA specifically, see Apple withholding Screen Mirroring (a feature I would enjoy tremendously) from EU for fear (IMHO quite reasonable) that the vaguely written DMA could be interpreted as requiring them to open mirroring to 3rd parties. It's been just a few months and already DMA impacted my enjoyment of my devices, no?

xandrius 2y ago
Just for your info, the banners are absolutely not required and they are the band aid solution of websites who don't give a crap about their users. If you also don't care about yourself, it's worse for you but many others now have the chance to deny providers of their scummy way to make money off unwitting users.
- shagie 2y ago
  Here is the home page of the European Union https://european-union.europa.eu/index_en https://european-union.europa.eu/index_en There is a banner. The European Commission on data protection https://commission.europa.eu/law/law-topic/data-protection_en https://commission.europa.eu/law/law-topic/data-protection_e... There is a banner. The press release for the current enforcement against Apple https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_24_3433 https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_24_... There is a banner. > the banners are absolutely not required and they are the band aid solution of websites who don't give a crap about their users. If this is true, it says a lot about the organization running those websites.
  - alt227 2y ago
    Parent is right, banners are not required by GDPR. These websites do not reflect the people in the organisations they represent, they are made by developers like the rest of us who are following the crowd like sheep.