4 ms·

Really needs to be regulated with some kind of oversight for this kind of silliness, and even better, needs a way for users to sideload when they choose to acce

Really needs to be regulated with some kind of oversight for this kind of silliness, and even better, needs a way for users to sideload when they choose to accept the risk and let devs sell direct. I side with Epic on that one.

imgabe 2y ago
Sideloading would be better. Adding regulation just means another layer of even more clueless bureaucrat you have to appease.
Zambyte 2y ago
I don't even like the term "sideload" honestly. It implies that Apple reasonably has any say over the software installed on a computer they don't own, and by "sideloading" you are circumventing that. They have no meaningful say. Exercising power over a computer they don't own is simply malware, and would be illegal if it were not for the associated branding. People should be able to control computers they own. Simple as that.
- dcow 2y ago
  Except that there’s no way for you to boot the machine on anything other than Apple’s approved firmware. You don’t have the keys, you don’t have ownership. (Not commenting on whether I agree or not, just the facts.)
- welferkj 2y ago
  [flagged]
  - exe34 2y ago
    I own a Mac Book Air from mid-2012. I run nixos on it. It does what I tell it to. When it dies, I will have to figure out if I will have the same control on the next one I buy - if not, I won't buy it. It's not a theoretical argument.
  - dghlsakjg 2y ago
    I love Apple products, and use their phones and computers. I absolutely agree that my phone should be allowed to run whatever code I want without their having approved it. Is the argument now better for having come from a different person, or am I misremembering what an ad hominem attack is?
    - welferkj 2y ago
      What argument? Ok, let's say it "should". Now what? Do you agree with state coercion forcing Apple to misdesign its products? If so, that's where you've lost me.
      - dghlsakjg 2y ago
        State coercion? You mean do I think that legal fictional entities (corporations) that exist by virtue of rules and laws, and benefits from the protection of those rules and laws, should also have to be subject to restrictions imposed by those rules and laws? Hell, we even forced Microsoft to offer third party browsers from their competitors at one point. Yes, I do think that is a good idea. We use state coercion to force Apple to not design products that burst into flames, to repair or replace products that the courts have deemed to be defective, we have even forced apple to use USB-C connectors, or as you say, to "misdesign" their products. Apple can and has used the App store to hurt consumers and competitors. The terms and conditions aren't static, so what I agreed to when I bought my phone isn't the same as the current policy. I absolutely think that the state should "coerce" them to "misdesign" their software by removing an artificial limitation and to allow apps sourced from different servers than their own when it harms consumers and restricts competition.
        welferkj 2y ago
        I think the harm to consumers would be greater if iOS were forced to adopt the "1998 Linux box" software distribution model. The danger is prominent apps ditching the app store in favour of their own distribution solutions. This is, in fact, exactly what Epic intended when it launched its lawfare to force apple to misdesign its products. The forced misdesign also increases cost (inevitably passed onto the consumers) as Apple is forced to either develop separate solutions for every relevant jurisdiction, or universally apply the most restrictive misdesign dictates.
  - ensignavenger 2y ago
    If I could install whatever app I wanted on an iPhone, I would definitely try one out and very likely switch to using it over Android. I actually did have an iPod Touch back in the early days of iOS, but it did not play well with my non-mac desktop, so I sold it and haven't owned an Apple device since then. But I am totally willing to give them another chance. But to answer your question- because free markets require regulation to keep them free. If Google and Apple are allowed to have an unregulated duopoly, they will abuse that position to force out competitors and prevent new ones from entering the market.
isodev 2y ago
Yes, and the process made public and transparent, especially for gatekeepers. This kind of mistakes happen both ways - legitimate apps have a hard time publishing updates and malicious apps get through and are made available to users.
abtinf 2y ago
Because regulations have never resulted in bureaucratic silliness? Oh, wait…
cruffle_duffle 2y ago
If anything, government regulation would make the App Store submission process even more onerous. Instead of new hire apple/google contractors you’ll be getting cranky government staff who probably have less agency than the former contractors ever had. Be careful what you wish for.

imgabe 2y ago

Sideloading would be better. Adding regulation just means another layer of even more clueless bureaucrat you have to appease.

Zambyte 2y ago

I don't even like the term "sideload" honestly. It implies that Apple reasonably has any say over the software installed on a computer they don't own, and by "sideloading" you are circumventing that. They have no meaningful say. Exercising power over a computer they don't own is simply malware, and would be illegal if it were not for the associated branding. People should be able to control computers they own. Simple as that.

dcow 2y ago
Except that there’s no way for you to boot the machine on anything other than Apple’s approved firmware. You don’t have the keys, you don’t have ownership. (Not commenting on whether I agree or not, just the facts.)
welferkj 2y ago
[flagged]
- exe34 2y ago
  I own a Mac Book Air from mid-2012. I run nixos on it. It does what I tell it to. When it dies, I will have to figure out if I will have the same control on the next one I buy - if not, I won't buy it. It's not a theoretical argument.
- dghlsakjg 2y ago
  I love Apple products, and use their phones and computers. I absolutely agree that my phone should be allowed to run whatever code I want without their having approved it. Is the argument now better for having come from a different person, or am I misremembering what an ad hominem attack is?
  - welferkj 2y ago
    What argument? Ok, let's say it "should". Now what? Do you agree with state coercion forcing Apple to misdesign its products? If so, that's where you've lost me.
    - dghlsakjg 2y ago
      State coercion? You mean do I think that legal fictional entities (corporations) that exist by virtue of rules and laws, and benefits from the protection of those rules and laws, should also have to be subject to restrictions imposed by those rules and laws? Hell, we even forced Microsoft to offer third party browsers from their competitors at one point. Yes, I do think that is a good idea. We use state coercion to force Apple to not design products that burst into flames, to repair or replace products that the courts have deemed to be defective, we have even forced apple to use USB-C connectors, or as you say, to "misdesign" their products. Apple can and has used the App store to hurt consumers and competitors. The terms and conditions aren't static, so what I agreed to when I bought my phone isn't the same as the current policy. I absolutely think that the state should "coerce" them to "misdesign" their software by removing an artificial limitation and to allow apps sourced from different servers than their own when it harms consumers and restricts competition.
      - welferkj 2y ago
        I think the harm to consumers would be greater if iOS were forced to adopt the "1998 Linux box" software distribution model. The danger is prominent apps ditching the app store in favour of their own distribution solutions. This is, in fact, exactly what Epic intended when it launched its lawfare to force apple to misdesign its products. The forced misdesign also increases cost (inevitably passed onto the consumers) as Apple is forced to either develop separate solutions for every relevant jurisdiction, or universally apply the most restrictive misdesign dictates.
- ensignavenger 2y ago
  If I could install whatever app I wanted on an iPhone, I would definitely try one out and very likely switch to using it over Android. I actually did have an iPod Touch back in the early days of iOS, but it did not play well with my non-mac desktop, so I sold it and haven't owned an Apple device since then. But I am totally willing to give them another chance. But to answer your question- because free markets require regulation to keep them free. If Google and Apple are allowed to have an unregulated duopoly, they will abuse that position to force out competitors and prevent new ones from entering the market.

isodev 2y ago

Yes, and the process made public and transparent, especially for gatekeepers. This kind of mistakes happen both ways - legitimate apps have a hard time publishing updates and malicious apps get through and are made available to users.

abtinf 2y ago

Because regulations have never resulted in bureaucratic silliness? Oh, wait…

cruffle_duffle 2y ago

If anything, government regulation would make the App Store submission process even more onerous. Instead of new hire apple/google contractors you’ll be getting cranky government staff who probably have less agency than the former contractors ever had. Be careful what you wish for.