4 ms·

The problem is not that I can’t use alternative apps - it’s that they don’t have access to various important system level features. Some examples: Only Messag

by yunohn 2y ago

The problem is not that I can’t use alternative apps - it’s that they don’t have access to various important system level features. Some examples: Only Messages and Mail can provide OTPs, again only when using the system keyboard. When swiping the lock screen to the left, only the system Camera is allowed to appear. When using navigation, only Apple Maps is allowed to provide the navigation overlay on the lock screen and Apple Watch. After years, the default Mail app can be changed, but AFAICT that doesn’t do anything other than override mailto links. However, this functionality isn’t available for Calendar for example. Similarly, you can’t override natural language Siri incantations to use your preferred apps. Like “message X” always uses Messages or “remind me of X” can only use Reminders. And alarms and timers can only use the Clock app. I really want Apple to fix all of this, but I guess it’s easier to act like the “deletion” of system apps provides a level playing field. The real problem is that the default apps lack a lot of other features that only third parties provide - but Apple can’t be assed to improve them.

crop_rotation 2y ago
The thing is most normal users don't really want random apps to be able to provide OTPs. While it would be nice to have an API for every system functionality like reminders where every app is allowed to register as the reminder app, it would necessitate far more complexity and far slower pace of development on the reminder interfacing. This is where there is a big difference in what the ultra few power users want and what normal users want. Ultra power users want to be able to install an app file for a random app with app store like experience and with as less hurdles as possible, while normal users are very scared of receiving an apk file in whatsapp and installing it by mistake (there is a spectrum here and it's not binary).
- yunohn 2y ago
  You don’t need to invent a “random apps” strawman. Apple already restricts which apps can be used as default mail/browser, just allow them access to the same APIs. Why not at least Gmail, Chrome, and gBoard? Millions of “non power users” use these apps over Apple’s offering.
- HumblyTossed 2y ago
  > The thing is most normal users don't really want random apps to be able to provide OTPs. You're right! But most normal users DO really want the app they CHOOSE to be able to provide OTPs!
  - crop_rotation 2y ago
    They do, but they also want to be safe from being able to choose unexpectedly and doing this in a way that both protects the user and gives them choices is hard. I also want mobile OSes to be flexible but they should always err on the side of caution given most of their users don't have time and energy to understand how to use such features safely and correctly.
    - yunohn 2y ago
      Could you explain the security problem you foresee? The Gmail app already has received an email which has the OTP in it. Why can’t it provide that to your keyboard? What’s the vulnerability here?
      - crop_rotation 2y ago
        I used to think similarly. However in the past 4-5 years I have observed closely my non tech family member's usage of smartphones and they frequently install totally random apps, they have no idea what their default browser/keyboard is at any moment or how to change it and who frequently receive apks on whatsapp and almost always click on it (only the android hurdle against apks protects them) so on. Sure it might be fine for gmail to write OTP but what about abcdmail, what about go pro SMS style apps. I think there is a fine balance here between flexibility and non tech user safety.
space_oddity 2y ago
Equal access to core system functions for all apps is needed
HumblyTossed 2y ago
Apple seems to have a culture of being assholes. "Okay, we'll comply, but here's the shittiest version of comply we can offer."
- wang_li 2y ago
  Yes, why would they go above and beyond to create unrecaptured expenses for themselves? I mean, you as a human only ever pay the minimal price for a product that they will sell it to you for. Why would any other human do otherwise?
  - latexr 2y ago
    > why would they go above and beyond Your parent comment isn’t suggesting they go “above and beyond”, they’re saying they don’t even do the bare minimum to comply. Those are wildly different things. And as to why Apple would do it (either comply or go above and beyond), there are numerous reasons: * To avoid government intervention. All the stuff they’re being forced to do was absolutely avoidable. The writing has been on the wall for long. * To not have to keep paying fines. * To not trash their reputation. * For long-term customer satisfaction. * So developers, which they depend on, don’t hate them. Just look at the Vision Pro, which shipped with no apps from the big players. In short, being an asshole only made short-term business sense. In the long run, they should strive to do better.
    - wang_li 2y ago
      Reasonably certain that when the parent wrote "We'll comply" they very explicitly said Apple is complying. Which removes the majority of your bullet points.
      - latexr 2y ago
        > they very explicitly said Apple is complying. But they very much are not, which is a point the EU Commission continues to hammer on.
  - 2y ago

by yunohn 2y ago

crop_rotation 2y ago

The thing is most normal users don't really want random apps to be able to provide OTPs. While it would be nice to have an API for every system functionality like reminders where every app is allowed to register as the reminder app, it would necessitate far more complexity and far slower pace of development on the reminder interfacing. This is where there is a big difference in what the ultra few power users want and what normal users want. Ultra power users want to be able to install an app file for a random app with app store like experience and with as less hurdles as possible, while normal users are very scared of receiving an apk file in whatsapp and installing it by mistake (there is a spectrum here and it's not binary).

yunohn 2y ago
You don’t need to invent a “random apps” strawman. Apple already restricts which apps can be used as default mail/browser, just allow them access to the same APIs. Why not at least Gmail, Chrome, and gBoard? Millions of “non power users” use these apps over Apple’s offering.
HumblyTossed 2y ago
> The thing is most normal users don't really want random apps to be able to provide OTPs. You're right! But most normal users DO really want the app they CHOOSE to be able to provide OTPs!
- crop_rotation 2y ago
  They do, but they also want to be safe from being able to choose unexpectedly and doing this in a way that both protects the user and gives them choices is hard. I also want mobile OSes to be flexible but they should always err on the side of caution given most of their users don't have time and energy to understand how to use such features safely and correctly.
  - yunohn 2y ago
    Could you explain the security problem you foresee? The Gmail app already has received an email which has the OTP in it. Why can’t it provide that to your keyboard? What’s the vulnerability here?
    - crop_rotation 2y ago
      I used to think similarly. However in the past 4-5 years I have observed closely my non tech family member's usage of smartphones and they frequently install totally random apps, they have no idea what their default browser/keyboard is at any moment or how to change it and who frequently receive apks on whatsapp and almost always click on it (only the android hurdle against apks protects them) so on. Sure it might be fine for gmail to write OTP but what about abcdmail, what about go pro SMS style apps. I think there is a fine balance here between flexibility and non tech user safety.

space_oddity 2y ago

Equal access to core system functions for all apps is needed

HumblyTossed 2y ago

Apple seems to have a culture of being assholes. "Okay, we'll comply, but here's the shittiest version of comply we can offer."

wang_li 2y ago
Yes, why would they go above and beyond to create unrecaptured expenses for themselves? I mean, you as a human only ever pay the minimal price for a product that they will sell it to you for. Why would any other human do otherwise?
- latexr 2y ago
  > why would they go above and beyond Your parent comment isn’t suggesting they go “above and beyond”, they’re saying they don’t even do the bare minimum to comply. Those are wildly different things. And as to why Apple would do it (either comply or go above and beyond), there are numerous reasons: * To avoid government intervention. All the stuff they’re being forced to do was absolutely avoidable. The writing has been on the wall for long. * To not have to keep paying fines. * To not trash their reputation. * For long-term customer satisfaction. * So developers, which they depend on, don’t hate them. Just look at the Vision Pro, which shipped with no apps from the big players. In short, being an asshole only made short-term business sense. In the long run, they should strive to do better.
  - wang_li 2y ago
    Reasonably certain that when the parent wrote "We'll comply" they very explicitly said Apple is complying. Which removes the majority of your bullet points.
    - latexr 2y ago
      > they very explicitly said Apple is complying. But they very much are not, which is a point the EU Commission continues to hammer on.
- 2y ago