4 ms·

That the only way to get applications on your phone is going through Apple, or a gatekeeper approved by apple, is a problem in itself too. That the first "app

That the only way to get applications on your phone is going through Apple, or a gatekeeper approved by apple, is a problem in itself too. That the first "app store" approved is built on predatory free to play gaming money is also a problem.

Unbefleckt 2y ago
[flagged]
- sunshinerag 2y ago
  Buy Google junk?
- Rinzler89 2y ago
  It's a problem for those who already bought Apple and didn't know any better or didn't care. Also, not everyone likes the only available other alternative, which is Google, as while they allow sideloading, they're still a privacy nightmare ad-ware company. The mobile space really needs a shake-up from the entrenched duopoly as currently the choice are a rock or a hard place.
  - nottorp 2y ago
    Yep, it's not like you have a choice in the mobile space. You can pick one of the two bad choices.
  - DEADMINCE 2y ago
    > It's a problem for those who already bought Apple and didn't know any better or didn't care. Also, not everyone likes the only available other alternative, which is Google, as while they allow sideloading, they're still a privacy nightmare ad-ware company. If you do care about privacy and having control of your own hardware, Google is the only choice, and that should be very obvious. Not because Android is so much better, but because you have a lot of options, even using a custom rom if you want. No such option with Apple.
    - servus45678981 2y ago
      There is Cyndia and other projects like sandcastle and stuff… Android is not the better choice; at all
      - dns_snek 2y ago
        Cydia requires a jailbreak to begin with, which won't be available on newer devices. Sandcastle project is just Android for iPhones which wouldn't be an alternative to Android and it looks abandoned, too.
      - DEADMINCEDOS 2y ago
        Android is the better choice not due to Android specifically, but rather due to Android as a platform which includes the hardware that the Android OS can run on, and all the forks of Android.
    - nottorp 2y ago
      > If you do care about privacy and having control of your own hardware, Google is the only choice, and that should be very obvious. Google is an ad company so it's totally not obvious to me. > Not because Android is so much better, but because you have a lot of options, even using a custom rom if you want. Oh, and can I pay with my phone when using those custom roms, for example?
      - DEADMINCEDOS 2y ago
        > Google is an ad company so it's totally not obvious to me. Google being an ad company is irrelevant here. I wasn't clear in my wording, I should have said 'Android as a platform' and not Google, is the only choice, and it is. Sure, there are disadvantages and it's not perfect, but it doesn't matter. If you care about privacy, using something like Graphene or eOS on a Fairphone is your best option. > Oh, and can I pay with my phone when using those custom roms, for example? The demand isn't there for that. Help change that and be the change you want to see in the world.
        2y ago
  - johnnyanmac 2y ago
    >as while they allow sideloading, they're still a privacy nightmare ad-ware company. You can definitely de-google AOSP (and I believe a few phones sell on that promise if you don't want to ever interface with that stuff). You can't de-apple IOS as of now. I don't think that problem will be solved anytime soon. Network effects + market capture = no one is going to want to learn a new system. The desktop space has been 3 platforms for decades and the only potential challenger is... Google. Meanwhile, Microsoft, Blackberry, and Palm all dropped out nearly a decade ago and there's nothing new on the horizon.
- asimovfan 2y ago
  Fundamentally boils down to the question of whether or not your society is equipped with enough education to successfully make rational consumption choices. Otherwise ultimately will cause a problem.
- jimnotgym 2y ago
  Yes it is. It is a problem for Epic games for instance.
caseyy 2y ago
What is “predatory free to play” in the context of Fortnite?
- angulardragon03 2y ago
  The kind of free to play with dark patterns that the FTC fines you for: https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2023/03/ftc-finalizes-order-requiring-fortnite-maker-epic-games-pay-245-million-tricking-users-making https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2023/03/... Most interesting is this section: > Fortnite’s counterintuitive, inconsistent, and confusing button configuration led players to incur unwanted charges based on the press of a single button. Apple is also taking aim at Epic here for using buttons and labels identical to the ones that they use - I’m curious to actually see these buttons, and I wonder if they are being used intentionally.
  - caseyy 2y ago
    Maybe that was once the case (possible), but I played Fornite for a while and I never had to pay for it, nor did I feel confused by whether I’m paying for something or not. The game is very successful and well-made. It is AAA-quality. An AAA price for that kind of content would be $60 minimum, more likely $80-100. Anything under that price and you’re playing the game at a steep discount, compared to what the games market offers. As for kids getting confused — yeah. That happens a lot, on the internet and outside the internet. Kids are confused about so many things. In fact, that is why they need to be parented. I feel like some parents should try and do that instead of waving fists at every tech/game company. This reminds me a bit about the outrage GTA used to cause. Just don’t buy it for your kid if you think it’s too violent for them, you know? It’s not hard. Don’t give your kid access to Fortnite if they will be confused. Or use a bank with spending limits. Or just give your kid gift cards. There are so many options in the world for parents other than child-proofing the world itself. Very, very many parents get this right. And it only takes 10 minutes to put some restrictions in place — bare minimum for parenting. Some others have the “government should do it for me” complex. Actions beget consequences. Neither Epic Games nor governments can fix bad parenting. So is paying less for a game than it’s worth really predatory? Alternatively, if kids get confused by something made for a broad audience, is that predatory? I don’t know, it’s grey area at best for me. You could make a claim that marketing in Fortnite is predatory but it’s the same marketing psychology that’s used elsewhere. Is marketing predatory then?
Hamuko 2y ago
"Gatekeeper approved by Apple" is not entirely accurate since Apple also gatekeeps what that gatekeeper can actually approve. All apps in third-party app stores must be notarized and Apple has complete control of what apps get notarized. UTM for example is not allowed on iOS even on third-party app stores since Apple has denied them notarization. It's more of a choice between Apple, or Apple + third-party gatekeeper. Well, at least now – I fully expect this to be investigated by the EU.
- DEADMINCE 2y ago
  It's going to be amazing watching Apple accept that they have to remove their stupid, anti-consumer and limited restrictions, at least in the EU.
  - Rinzler89 2y ago
    They'll fight tooth and nail even with the knowledge they'll eventually loose because they know once they cave in, other countries will want the same pro consumer privacy rules for them and Apple will have already run out of excuses by then.
whazor 2y ago
The first app store approved is Altstore PAL: https://rileytestut.com/blog/2024/04/17/introducing-altstore-pal/ https://rileytestut.com/blog/2024/04/17/introducing-altstore...
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- crossroadsguy 2y ago
  Was trying the AltServer (for non-EU) route but the effort ended quickly when it asked me to enter my Apple ID and password with an assurance that it will not be saved and that might as well be true. Just not worth it.
  - thejsa 2y ago
    In case it’s helpful- apparently you can just use a secondary Apple ID (even one made just for this use) with AltStore and it works just as well without risking one’s main ID. (Though for 365 day signing, that’d also need to be added to its own, or a non-individual, dev team.)
jsheard 2y ago
...is the official App Store not built on predatory free to play gaming money? The top grossing games on iOS are all "free", and they have no rules against the most exploitative types of F2P monetization (gacha/pseudo-gambling). They have even featured gacha games like Genshin Impact during their launch events. Apple had no qualms about Fortnites monetization model when it was in the App Store either, other than the fact that Epic tried to cut them out of the payment loop.
- nottorp 2y ago
  Yes so? I don't need another app store for free to play crap. No one does.
  - blueboo 2y ago
    Ah but if they’re forced to compete, the same “crap” might not automatically top the charts.
johnnyanmac 2y ago
>That the first "app store" approved is built on predatory free to play gaming money is also a problem. That's how 70% of apple's revenue is gained. AKA, the biggest players who are capable of advertising their own store without visibility from the default mode of purchase. I'm sure eventually we'll get FDroid equivalents on IOS, but Apple is still playing coy as of now. So nothing but the deepest pockets will challenge them.
- ffgjgf1 2y ago
  > That's how 70% of apple's revenue is gained That’s factually incorrect and a completely absurd figure. The make way more money from device sales
  - johnnyanmac 2y ago
    Forgive me, I forgot an important word there: 70% of Apples app store revenue comes from game MTX. This is pretty much public record thanks to Apple v. Epic. I completely get why they are in their death thoes, but as you said: they have other lucrative revenue streams anyway. So I hope the EU keeps slamming down on them.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
lenkite 2y ago
> That the first "app store" approved is built on predatory free to play gaming money is also a problem. Those are also the only guys who have enough money to compete with Apple's lawyers.

Unbefleckt 2y ago

[flagged]

sunshinerag 2y ago
Buy Google junk?
Rinzler89 2y ago
It's a problem for those who already bought Apple and didn't know any better or didn't care. Also, not everyone likes the only available other alternative, which is Google, as while they allow sideloading, they're still a privacy nightmare ad-ware company. The mobile space really needs a shake-up from the entrenched duopoly as currently the choice are a rock or a hard place.
- nottorp 2y ago
  Yep, it's not like you have a choice in the mobile space. You can pick one of the two bad choices.
- DEADMINCE 2y ago
  > It's a problem for those who already bought Apple and didn't know any better or didn't care. Also, not everyone likes the only available other alternative, which is Google, as while they allow sideloading, they're still a privacy nightmare ad-ware company. If you do care about privacy and having control of your own hardware, Google is the only choice, and that should be very obvious. Not because Android is so much better, but because you have a lot of options, even using a custom rom if you want. No such option with Apple.
  - servus45678981 2y ago
    There is Cyndia and other projects like sandcastle and stuff… Android is not the better choice; at all
    - dns_snek 2y ago
      Cydia requires a jailbreak to begin with, which won't be available on newer devices. Sandcastle project is just Android for iPhones which wouldn't be an alternative to Android and it looks abandoned, too.
    - DEADMINCEDOS 2y ago
      Android is the better choice not due to Android specifically, but rather due to Android as a platform which includes the hardware that the Android OS can run on, and all the forks of Android.
  - nottorp 2y ago
    > If you do care about privacy and having control of your own hardware, Google is the only choice, and that should be very obvious. Google is an ad company so it's totally not obvious to me. > Not because Android is so much better, but because you have a lot of options, even using a custom rom if you want. Oh, and can I pay with my phone when using those custom roms, for example?
    - DEADMINCEDOS 2y ago
      > Google is an ad company so it's totally not obvious to me. Google being an ad company is irrelevant here. I wasn't clear in my wording, I should have said 'Android as a platform' and not Google, is the only choice, and it is. Sure, there are disadvantages and it's not perfect, but it doesn't matter. If you care about privacy, using something like Graphene or eOS on a Fairphone is your best option. > Oh, and can I pay with my phone when using those custom roms, for example? The demand isn't there for that. Help change that and be the change you want to see in the world.
      - 2y ago
- johnnyanmac 2y ago
  >as while they allow sideloading, they're still a privacy nightmare ad-ware company. You can definitely de-google AOSP (and I believe a few phones sell on that promise if you don't want to ever interface with that stuff). You can't de-apple IOS as of now. I don't think that problem will be solved anytime soon. Network effects + market capture = no one is going to want to learn a new system. The desktop space has been 3 platforms for decades and the only potential challenger is... Google. Meanwhile, Microsoft, Blackberry, and Palm all dropped out nearly a decade ago and there's nothing new on the horizon.
asimovfan 2y ago
Fundamentally boils down to the question of whether or not your society is equipped with enough education to successfully make rational consumption choices. Otherwise ultimately will cause a problem.
jimnotgym 2y ago
Yes it is. It is a problem for Epic games for instance.

caseyy 2y ago

What is “predatory free to play” in the context of Fortnite?

angulardragon03 2y ago
The kind of free to play with dark patterns that the FTC fines you for: https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2023/03/ftc-finalizes-order-requiring-fortnite-maker-epic-games-pay-245-million-tricking-users-making https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2023/03/... Most interesting is this section: > Fortnite’s counterintuitive, inconsistent, and confusing button configuration led players to incur unwanted charges based on the press of a single button. Apple is also taking aim at Epic here for using buttons and labels identical to the ones that they use - I’m curious to actually see these buttons, and I wonder if they are being used intentionally.
- caseyy 2y ago
  Maybe that was once the case (possible), but I played Fornite for a while and I never had to pay for it, nor did I feel confused by whether I’m paying for something or not. The game is very successful and well-made. It is AAA-quality. An AAA price for that kind of content would be $60 minimum, more likely $80-100. Anything under that price and you’re playing the game at a steep discount, compared to what the games market offers. As for kids getting confused — yeah. That happens a lot, on the internet and outside the internet. Kids are confused about so many things. In fact, that is why they need to be parented. I feel like some parents should try and do that instead of waving fists at every tech/game company. This reminds me a bit about the outrage GTA used to cause. Just don’t buy it for your kid if you think it’s too violent for them, you know? It’s not hard. Don’t give your kid access to Fortnite if they will be confused. Or use a bank with spending limits. Or just give your kid gift cards. There are so many options in the world for parents other than child-proofing the world itself. Very, very many parents get this right. And it only takes 10 minutes to put some restrictions in place — bare minimum for parenting. Some others have the “government should do it for me” complex. Actions beget consequences. Neither Epic Games nor governments can fix bad parenting. So is paying less for a game than it’s worth really predatory? Alternatively, if kids get confused by something made for a broad audience, is that predatory? I don’t know, it’s grey area at best for me. You could make a claim that marketing in Fortnite is predatory but it’s the same marketing psychology that’s used elsewhere. Is marketing predatory then?

Hamuko 2y ago

"Gatekeeper approved by Apple" is not entirely accurate since Apple also gatekeeps what that gatekeeper can actually approve. All apps in third-party app stores must be notarized and Apple has complete control of what apps get notarized. UTM for example is not allowed on iOS even on third-party app stores since Apple has denied them notarization. It's more of a choice between Apple, or Apple + third-party gatekeeper. Well, at least now – I fully expect this to be investigated by the EU.

DEADMINCE 2y ago
It's going to be amazing watching Apple accept that they have to remove their stupid, anti-consumer and limited restrictions, at least in the EU.
- Rinzler89 2y ago
  They'll fight tooth and nail even with the knowledge they'll eventually loose because they know once they cave in, other countries will want the same pro consumer privacy rules for them and Apple will have already run out of excuses by then.

whazor 2y ago

The first app store approved is Altstore PAL: https://rileytestut.com/blog/2024/04/17/introducing-altstore-pal/ https://rileytestut.com/blog/2024/04/17/introducing-altstore...

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
crossroadsguy 2y ago
Was trying the AltServer (for non-EU) route but the effort ended quickly when it asked me to enter my Apple ID and password with an assurance that it will not be saved and that might as well be true. Just not worth it.
- thejsa 2y ago
  In case it’s helpful- apparently you can just use a secondary Apple ID (even one made just for this use) with AltStore and it works just as well without risking one’s main ID. (Though for 365 day signing, that’d also need to be added to its own, or a non-individual, dev team.)

jsheard 2y ago

...is the official App Store not built on predatory free to play gaming money? The top grossing games on iOS are all "free", and they have no rules against the most exploitative types of F2P monetization (gacha/pseudo-gambling). They have even featured gacha games like Genshin Impact during their launch events. Apple had no qualms about Fortnites monetization model when it was in the App Store either, other than the fact that Epic tried to cut them out of the payment loop.

nottorp 2y ago
Yes so? I don't need another app store for free to play crap. No one does.
- blueboo 2y ago
  Ah but if they’re forced to compete, the same “crap” might not automatically top the charts.

johnnyanmac 2y ago

>That the first "app store" approved is built on predatory free to play gaming money is also a problem. That's how 70% of apple's revenue is gained. AKA, the biggest players who are capable of advertising their own store without visibility from the default mode of purchase. I'm sure eventually we'll get FDroid equivalents on IOS, but Apple is still playing coy as of now. So nothing but the deepest pockets will challenge them.

ffgjgf1 2y ago
> That's how 70% of apple's revenue is gained That’s factually incorrect and a completely absurd figure. The make way more money from device sales
- johnnyanmac 2y ago
  Forgive me, I forgot an important word there: 70% of Apples app store revenue comes from game MTX. This is pretty much public record thanks to Apple v. Epic. I completely get why they are in their death thoes, but as you said: they have other lucrative revenue streams anyway. So I hope the EU keeps slamming down on them.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

lenkite 2y ago

> That the first "app store" approved is built on predatory free to play gaming money is also a problem. Those are also the only guys who have enough money to compete with Apple's lawyers.