5 ms·

How is the DMA mildly anti-user?

sneak 2y ago
It removes the ability of a user to choose a vendor that will 100% abstract away the responsibility of keeping a phone secure and free of malware. It requires that the user educate themselves a fair amount to input answers to decisions about browsers such as the one discussed here, versus allowing their OS vendor to just do whatever they think is best. Many users don’t want more options, they just want an opinionated and reasoned one-size-fits-all experience. Such a desire is incompatible with a fair and open market for browser software or app stores, for example. Allowing a user to choose any app store means the user can no longer choose not to ever be able to choose an app store, for example. This increases the chance for malware or deceptive software to end up on the user’s device. The only way I can think of squaring this circle is for Apple to sell two different SKUs of every iPhone: one that can sideload (and allow apps such as alternate app store apps to install other apps), and one that cannot. Then users can choose their overall security model once at time of purchase. Absent that, the DMA is choosing the “you must have more choices” choice for users, whether users prefer that or not. Many users choose iOS because the security choices are already made for them and can’t get fucked up by their own configuring.
- throwaway22032 2y ago
  > The only way I can think of squaring this circle is for Apple to sell two different SKUs of every iPhone: one that can sideload (and allow apps such as alternate app store apps to install other apps), and one that cannot. Then users can choose their overall security model once at time of purchase. Well, no, the Android model for unlocking the bootloader works well here - just make it awkward enough that a typical user can't do it without jumping through a few hoops.
  - sneak 2y ago
    No, this is insufficient. Unskilled users will listen to people they shouldn’t and will jump through the hoops when instructed appropriately by those who wish to deceive or surveil them. Remember the whole Facebook surveillance VPN thing?
    - throwaway22032 2y ago
      I don't agree that it is insufficient, it's not 100% absolutely fool proof, it doesn't have to be. A kitchen knife isn't foolproof, you could convince someone with a sufficiently low IQ to stab themselves with it.
- pjerem 2y ago
  > Many users don’t want more options, they just want an opinionated and reasoned one-size-fits-all experience. Such a desire is incompatible with a fair and open market for browser software or app stores, for example. Many users want what marketing told them they'd want, and that's not snarky, I include myself in it. Guess what, I even own an iPhone and two Macs. It's all fun and games until this create megacorporations which are more powerful than democratic states. If the price to pay to try to reduce monopolies is "forcing" normal people, which, on average, are not stupid, to use their brain for literally 3 seconds per couple years, I do think it's not that stressful. But have no fear, they'll choose Chrome as automatically and with the same level of stress that they'd just open Safari before that. So they'll 100% abstract away the responsibility of keeping a phone secure and free of malware ... to Google. > Allowing a user to choose any app store means the user can no longer choose not to ever be able to choose an app store Wait what ? This sentence doesn't even make sense. And furthermore you just have to tap the App Store icon to not choose not to use the App Store (lol). > The only way I can think of squaring this circle is for Apple to sell two different SKUs of every iPhone: one that can sideload (and allow apps such as alternate app store apps to install other apps), and one that cannot. Then users can choose their overall security model once at time of purchase. Mmmmmh, so now you think the users can choose. But let's go deep in your theory. Let's say that Apple chose to do that. You understand that this would translate to the same object with just a software flag somewhere ? Why couldn't I, a responsible human, owner of this iPhone 13 Mini, decide to switch this theoretical flag without buying a new phone ? And they don't even sell 13 Minis anymore. > Absent that, the DMA is choosing the “you must have more choices” choice for users, whether users prefer that or not. Many users choose iOS because the security choices are already made for them and can’t get fucked up by their own configuring. The DMA doesn't disallow users to choose the Apple way. In fact it's still the default everywhere in the OS, the process to sideload other stores is pretty hidden and clunky. But yes, you are right, DMA forces them to click on "Safari" on a setup screen and maybe it'll be the root cause of a future PTSD epidemic.
  - roenxi 2y ago
    > If the price to pay to try to reduce monopolies is "forcing" normal people, which, on average, are not stupid, to use their brain for literally 3 seconds per couple years, I do think it's not that stressful. They can't assess >10 browsers in 3 seconds. I haven't even heard of a few of them, it'd take me an hour or so of research to figure out if some of those options were reliable if I didn't already know what browser I wanted because I install things like Debian for fun.
skywhopper 2y ago
Being confronted with a list of browsers you know nothing about, a decision most people don’t understand the consequences of, the first time you use your phone, is very annoying, confusing, and stressful.
- jorvi 2y ago
  Let's break that down > very annoying Mildly annoying at best. And it's a screen you see once every few years at best. > Confusing Not any less confusing than opening an app that requires a paid account, but with absolutely zero indication on how to attain said paid account (Apple's anti-steering rules for Netflix / Spotify / etc.) > Stressful If a simple browser screen stresses someone out, I fear for how they navigate the rest of their digital life. More importantly, what is anti-user is two tech giants using their market power to force companies and users into a duopoloy, in which they can then suck 30% out of every single bit of value created.
  - kibibu 2y ago
    This is a very tech savvy opinion. Consider Grandpa, nervous about getting his first device, hearing that Macs are friendly, and then being faced with this decision. People who are not familiar with computing are often terrified of screwing it up.
    - snowpid 2y ago
      Grandpa today has at max 80 years and went into pension 15 years. Almost all grandpa's got in touch with the internet during their working time
    - jorvi 2y ago
      Grandpa also needs to do his banking online, his taxes, needs to manage his online identity, car registration, medical things. Most of these have terrible, cruddy, confusing interfaces. In the grand scheme of things, a one-time crystal-clear popup list where all he needs to do is press the familiar "red yellow green blue" (Chrome) icon is not what is going to stress him out or undo him.

It removes the ability of a user to choose a vendor that will 100% abstract away the responsibility of keeping a phone secure and free of malware. It requires that the user educate themselves a fair amount to input answers to decisions about browsers such as the one discussed here, versus allowing their OS vendor to just do whatever they think is best. Many users don’t want more options, they just want an opinionated and reasoned one-size-fits-all experience. Such a desire is incompatible with a fair and open market for browser software or app stores, for example. Allowing a user to choose any app store means the user can no longer choose not to ever be able to choose an app store, for example. This increases the chance for malware or deceptive software to end up on the user’s device. The only way I can think of squaring this circle is for Apple to sell two different SKUs of every iPhone: one that can sideload (and allow apps such as alternate app store apps to install other apps), and one that cannot. Then users can choose their overall security model once at time of purchase. Absent that, the DMA is choosing the “you must have more choices” choice for users, whether users prefer that or not. Many users choose iOS because the security choices are already made for them and can’t get fucked up by their own configuring.

throwaway22032 2y ago
> The only way I can think of squaring this circle is for Apple to sell two different SKUs of every iPhone: one that can sideload (and allow apps such as alternate app store apps to install other apps), and one that cannot. Then users can choose their overall security model once at time of purchase. Well, no, the Android model for unlocking the bootloader works well here - just make it awkward enough that a typical user can't do it without jumping through a few hoops.
- sneak 2y ago
  No, this is insufficient. Unskilled users will listen to people they shouldn’t and will jump through the hoops when instructed appropriately by those who wish to deceive or surveil them. Remember the whole Facebook surveillance VPN thing?
  - throwaway22032 2y ago
    I don't agree that it is insufficient, it's not 100% absolutely fool proof, it doesn't have to be. A kitchen knife isn't foolproof, you could convince someone with a sufficiently low IQ to stab themselves with it.
pjerem 2y ago
> Many users don’t want more options, they just want an opinionated and reasoned one-size-fits-all experience. Such a desire is incompatible with a fair and open market for browser software or app stores, for example. Many users want what marketing told them they'd want, and that's not snarky, I include myself in it. Guess what, I even own an iPhone and two Macs. It's all fun and games until this create megacorporations which are more powerful than democratic states. If the price to pay to try to reduce monopolies is "forcing" normal people, which, on average, are not stupid, to use their brain for literally 3 seconds per couple years, I do think it's not that stressful. But have no fear, they'll choose Chrome as automatically and with the same level of stress that they'd just open Safari before that. So they'll 100% abstract away the responsibility of keeping a phone secure and free of malware ... to Google. > Allowing a user to choose any app store means the user can no longer choose not to ever be able to choose an app store Wait what ? This sentence doesn't even make sense. And furthermore you just have to tap the App Store icon to not choose not to use the App Store (lol). > The only way I can think of squaring this circle is for Apple to sell two different SKUs of every iPhone: one that can sideload (and allow apps such as alternate app store apps to install other apps), and one that cannot. Then users can choose their overall security model once at time of purchase. Mmmmmh, so now you think the users can choose. But let's go deep in your theory. Let's say that Apple chose to do that. You understand that this would translate to the same object with just a software flag somewhere ? Why couldn't I, a responsible human, owner of this iPhone 13 Mini, decide to switch this theoretical flag without buying a new phone ? And they don't even sell 13 Minis anymore. > Absent that, the DMA is choosing the “you must have more choices” choice for users, whether users prefer that or not. Many users choose iOS because the security choices are already made for them and can’t get fucked up by their own configuring. The DMA doesn't disallow users to choose the Apple way. In fact it's still the default everywhere in the OS, the process to sideload other stores is pretty hidden and clunky. But yes, you are right, DMA forces them to click on "Safari" on a setup screen and maybe it'll be the root cause of a future PTSD epidemic.
- roenxi 2y ago
  > If the price to pay to try to reduce monopolies is "forcing" normal people, which, on average, are not stupid, to use their brain for literally 3 seconds per couple years, I do think it's not that stressful. They can't assess >10 browsers in 3 seconds. I haven't even heard of a few of them, it'd take me an hour or so of research to figure out if some of those options were reliable if I didn't already know what browser I wanted because I install things like Debian for fun.

skywhopper 2y ago

Being confronted with a list of browsers you know nothing about, a decision most people don’t understand the consequences of, the first time you use your phone, is very annoying, confusing, and stressful.

jorvi 2y ago
Let's break that down > very annoying Mildly annoying at best. And it's a screen you see once every few years at best. > Confusing Not any less confusing than opening an app that requires a paid account, but with absolutely zero indication on how to attain said paid account (Apple's anti-steering rules for Netflix / Spotify / etc.) > Stressful If a simple browser screen stresses someone out, I fear for how they navigate the rest of their digital life. More importantly, what is anti-user is two tech giants using their market power to force companies and users into a duopoloy, in which they can then suck 30% out of every single bit of value created.
- kibibu 2y ago
  This is a very tech savvy opinion. Consider Grandpa, nervous about getting his first device, hearing that Macs are friendly, and then being faced with this decision. People who are not familiar with computing are often terrified of screwing it up.
  - snowpid 2y ago
    Grandpa today has at max 80 years and went into pension 15 years. Almost all grandpa's got in touch with the internet during their working time
  - jorvi 2y ago
    Grandpa also needs to do his banking online, his taxes, needs to manage his online identity, car registration, medical things. Most of these have terrible, cruddy, confusing interfaces. In the grand scheme of things, a one-time crystal-clear popup list where all he needs to do is press the familiar "red yellow green blue" (Chrome) icon is not what is going to stress him out or undo him.