7 ms·

Willing to have my mind changed on this: why should Apple be forced to allow sideloading? A big part of the reason I use Apple products is that they protect no

by cedws 2y ago

Willing to have my mind changed on this: why should Apple be forced to allow sideloading? A big part of the reason I use Apple products is that they protect not only me, but my family who don't know what the implications of sideloading are. I know that the apps my phone runs have been given the green light by Apple. Is the 30% fee egregious? Maybe, but why shouldn't they be able to charge the fees they want? It's their platform. And for those who don't agree with it, like Epic Games, maybe they can go and develop their own phone? Mandating Apple to allow sideloading is essentially saying "we have no hope of ever developing a competing open platform so we have to use law to force this American company to make us one." Maybe we need less bureaucracy and more building. Send some of that sweet EU funding towards companies building open source tech.

_aavaa_ 2y ago
> why shouldn't they be able to charge the fees they want? It's their platform. Wrong. I argue it's my phone. Why shouldn't I be allowed to install what I want on it? Why stop at app for 30% fees? It puts a lot of work into Safari too, why not 30% of every purchase made through safari? > Mandating Apple to allow sideloading is essentially saying ... that it should allow users do on their iOS devices what they can do on their macOS devices.
- cedws 2y ago
  >Wrong. I argue it's my phone. Why shouldn't I be allowed to install what I want on it? It's your phone that you bought from Apple with full knowledge of the restrictions beforehand. If you wanted a phone with more freedom you could have bought another device and voted with your wallet, but you didn't. >that it should allow users do on their iOS devices what they can do on their macOS devices. Software limitations are not exclusive to Apple. They're everywhere. For instance, manufacturers intentionally kneecap CPUs/GPUs so they can sell the same chips from the same wafer at different price points. Why aren't they targeted too? You bought the whole chip but you don't get to use it.
  - do_not_redeem 2y ago
    > If you wanted a phone with more freedom you could have bought another device and voted with your wallet, but you didn't. Sounds like a "we should improve society somewhat" moment. https://i.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/001/259/257/342.png https://i.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/001/259/257/342... If you have two choices and one is barely better than the other, you think people shouldn't be allowed to acknowledge the negative aspects of the thing they chose?
    - roenxi 2y ago
      Overruling the world's premier phone-maker on questions of how to design a phone is not improving society. I'm giving Apple money specifically because they designed the phone. I don't want the EU trying to figure it out; they have a reverse-midas touch. Things touch ends up slumping. It is a very salient point that the reason they are issuing orders to a US company is because they "helped" all the EU companies make decisions until they were effectively forced out of the market with failed tech policies. If you want a phone built by someone who doesn't know how to design a phone, I'm sure there are already lots of tiny and irrelevant players already in the EU that you can patronise. The phone probably won't be particularly good though, evidenced by the fact that most people with a choice prefer to let Apple make all the decisions. Or various Asian groups who have a knack for tech.
      - bored13 2y ago
        In a similar vein, I dislike forcing of the USB-C port. I think we are going to approach a wall (especially concerning foldables) where the thickness of the port is a limiting factor and it should be up to the user to decide if its worth going thinner with a proprietary port. If customers choose to go with USB-C, a thicker phone, larger battery etc, that is all and well, I feel that will happen anyways. But it should be up to the customer & manufacturer, not the government.
        jraph 2y ago
        > up to the customer & manufacturer Yeah, no. In this specific topic, we've had plenty of time to establish that it is isn't the case. Power is not balanced between individuals and manufacturers. USB is a horrible mess but for the first time in my life, I can travel with one charger that works with all the devices I take with me. I could even travel without a charger and be pretty sure I will be able to find one at the destination. People around me seem as happy as me about this and it wasn't the case as long as manufacturers were not forced to use USB. Nobody complains about the port form factor. That's simply not a concern.
- sunshinerag 2y ago
  You are allowed to NOT buy that phone? You are allowed to buy a phone that allows the use case you look for. Why should your use case be forced on rest?
kennysoona 2y ago
> why should Apple be forced to allow sideloading? Because it's unreasonable for any manufacturer to have that much control over how end users use their devices. > A big part of the reason I use Apple products is that they protect not only me, but my family who don't know what the implications of sideloading are. You can still use devices in nanny mode if needed. If your relatives can be talked into sideloading an app and bypassing the inevitable big scary warnings, they can be talked into other stuff equally as dangerous.
- carlosjobim 2y ago
  Car manufacturers have total control over how users use their devices. If you want to change any of that, you have to start making hardware changes. You can do that with an Apple device also, if you have the skills. But why?
  - Dylan16807 2y ago
    Nobody has those skills because of how hostile they've made it to modification. That's the problem. And the more car manufacturers do similar things, they more they become the problem too and laws need to get involved.
    - carlosjobim 2y ago
      > That's the problem. That's not their problem.
      - Dylan16807 2y ago
        If they want to do a sale rather than a rental, it should be their problem.
  - kennysoona 2y ago
    > Car manufacturers have total control over how users use their devices. If you want to change any of that, you have to start making hardware changes. Cars are not phones, and your analogy here is missing the point. No one should have to make hardware modifications because they want to put code on their computer without paying Apple for the privilege. It's not more complicated than that. As I said, you can still have your device in nanny mode if you need it.
gilgoomesh 2y ago
The argument to force side loading is the argument that Apple are using market position in phone hardware sales to control, and profit from, the adjacent market of software that runs on phones. Yes, you can run software on phones via a web browser. But Apple largely control the features of the web browsers that run on phones, too, and arguably limit those features so that browser apps are never quite as good as native apps. This is "gatekeeping" and while it isn't illegal in all jurisdictions, it is anti-consumer, hence the consumer backlash.
- bamboozled 2y ago
  If you don’t like it buy a “fair phone”. There is some freedom of choice here too. I want the freedom to choose a locked down phone for my family and myself to use without worrying about it being hacked. I write this as someone who is a major open source contributor and advocate. There are somethings I just want to work, and my primary phone is one of them. I have other play devices. I haven't checked in some time but why don't you just jailbreak your iphone if you want it to be "yours".
  - _imnothere 2y ago
    > without worrying about it being hacked Are you implying that iPhone isn't "hackable"?
    - bamboozled 2y ago
      Under normal usage the answer is extremely rarely. I can't say the same for the myriad of various Windows and Android phones me and my family have had hacked over the years. I can totally imagine "side loading" meaning, my mother gets scammed into installing some malware and losing her savings.
do_not_redeem 2y ago
> they protect not only me, but my family who don't know what the implications of sideloading are 1. The app review process is largely ineffective. The idea that it protects anyone is a myth encouraged by Apple to feed their profit margins. https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2021/06/06/apple-app-store-scams-fraud/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2021/06/06/apple-a... 2. If Apple ever allows sideloading, it will inevitably involve installing Xcode, connecting your phone to your laptop with a USB cable, running obscure shell commands and clicking through scary warnings. Do you really think your grandparents are capable of doing this, let alone being tricked into it?
diego_moita 2y ago
> why should Apple be forced to allow sideloading? From the perspective of software makers, to fight oligopsony: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oligopsony https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oligopsony
- agnishom 2y ago
  > why should Apple be forced to allow sideloading? Because it is too large in terms of market share. In an ideal world, there would be so many alternatives, that I could just choose whatever ecosystem I want. However, we can't really reach that state of affairs easily. Without interference, the gap between the phones that support software freedom and those which do not will increase. The "Apple should be allowed to set whatever terms" argument sounds like this: "We shouldn't impose any food safety or agricultural standards. If you care, you can just grow your own crops and cook your own food"
  - cedws 2y ago
    I think the argument I'd like to make is that when there is a oligopsony, regulators should intervene to add more competitors to the sell side. In other words, fund competitors, instead of using law to directly twist the arms of companies. EU is already on a back footing. We are too reliant on American technology, and we don't have any players in the smartphone market. If consumers want something we should build it.
alwayslikethis 2y ago
> maybe they can go and develop their own phone? You don't like the phone system? Maybe you can go and make your own phone network. You don't like this forum? Go start your own forum. Do you see the problem here? Network monopolies are pretty much impossible for a newcomer to compete with, even for a rather resourceful entity, like Microsoft and their phones.
azov 2y ago
We may want to start thinking about smartphones as infrastructure. It’s not practical to run five sets of power lines to each house so that utility companies can compete in a free market. Thus utility companies are heavily regulated. But it’s also not practical for each person to carry five smartphones. So, maybe we need to regulate this space as well?..
- cedws 2y ago
  This makes sense but is twisting the arms of the infrastructure companies the way to go? Can't we just encourage free market dynamics? If open platforms are what the consumer wants, manufacturers will sell phones with open platforms and the consumer will decide what they want to buy. EU funding can help rebalance if needed by helping develop new competitors.
  - zigzag312 2y ago
    > Can't we just encourage free market dynamics? 1) It's not a simple thing to do. 2) The opening of platforms can be considered a way of encouraging free market dynamics.
  - bee_rider 2y ago
    EU voters decided to use regulations instead of the market. That’s their right. There’s no reason to give the market some magic position as the only way to do things.
  - Nursie 2y ago
    > the consumer will decide what they want to buy Except people don't actually buy in a way that's consistent with enlightened self interest, making the free market at best a poor approximation to reality. Consumers buy what's advertised, what's 'influenced', what their friends have and what's shiny, ahead of what might actually be useful for them. Micro-level decisions people make rarely take into account macro-level consequences. This is not to say I think regulation is an amazing solution to everything, but more that I think there is a religiosity to free-market proponents that credits market participants and markets themselves with more than their due.
WheatMillington 2y ago
Tim Cook isn't gonna read this bro
- kernal 2y ago
  Yeah, but Tim Apple might.
frenchtoast8 2y ago
I've never wanted to sideload an app until recently. I discovered that the recent generations of iPhones and iPads can achieve native performance with the Dolphinios GC/Wii emulator, but the app can only be sideloaded. Apple doesn't have a problem with emulation in general (there are NES/SNES/etc emulators available for download in the App Store), but they do not allow JIT compilation for security reasons which these newer generation emulators require. Currently sideloading is a pain so I still haven't done it. If it becomes as easy as Android I personally would be pretty happy just for this use case. Ironically I'm a bit disappointed by how powerful the hardware is getting these days because of the software limitations. Don't get me wrong, I fully admit my days of running custom OSes is over, I only use my iPad as an entertainment device and am happy to keep it very simple. I just feel power users should be able to sideload an app or two without needing to use an Xcode debugger or whatever.
ApolloFortyNine 2y ago
>A big part of the reason I use Apple products is that they protect not only me, but my family who don't know what the implications of sideloading are. I know that the apps my phone runs have been given the green light by Apple. This argument always reads like satire, but comes up a lot. You're essentially arguing freedom is dangerous because some people aren't smart enough to handle it. Apple could always do what Android does and gate it behind a hidden setting. No one is arguing your web browser should be allowed to auto install apps at will, or whatever it is you may be picturing. >Mandating Apple to allow sideloading is essentially saying "we have no hope of ever developing a competing open platform so we have to use law to force this American company to make us one." I'm confused on this argument, do you not know Android exists? The issue is that if you want to reach the majority of the public, you have to also support Apple devices, and you have to bend over backwards to their 30% cut and arbitrary rules. Thank god this attitude wasn't around when Windows was taking off. I think we'd seriously have set back society if every Windows application had to pay Microsoft a 30% fee, and had to pass Microsoft approval.
- Nursie 2y ago
  > You're essentially arguing freedom is dangerous because some people aren't smart enough to handle it. When it comes to mobile phone apps, 100%. My mum (77) can just about operate a phone, someone who gained her trust (and scammers are very good at that these days) could likely talk her into installing pretty much whatever, and she'd have no idea what was going on. Her only defence in such a situation would likely be giving up because she didn't understand how to follow the instructions. I also have family with learning disabilities. The idea that we are all fully able, autonomous, powerful and informed at all times is a fantasy. For some people a locked device is pretty much a godsend. I'm not saying the fees are reasonable, mind. And maybe there is an argument that apple should sell locked and unlocked versions of the phone or something.
  - _carbyau_ 2y ago
    You mums problem is not the phone. Her problem is random strangers being able to "talk her into" whatever and as an adult she is still responsible for her actions. At some point, we have to accept that to operate things in mainstream society requires capability. It is sad when aging parents no longer meet that minimal bar, but it is part of aging for all of us if we live long enough. At some point, we can no longer drive a car, we can hand over responsibility for finances, and medical decisions. We need a better way to manage old people on their phones. Maybe sideloading AND "old person mode" should be options on all phones.
modeless 2y ago
You supposedly "own" the iPhone that you purchased. Why shouldn't you be able to install the software you prefer? Apple's control of your iPhone hardware is not a natural state. They maintain that control through the power of copyright, granted by the government. Modifying iOS and iPhones to allow running arbitrary software is feasible, but distributing such modified copies is illegal due to Apple's copyright, enforced by the courts. If anyone could copy and modify iOS at will then they would soon lose that control. Copyright is not an inalienable right like the right of ownership of real property. It is a monopoly granted by the government for a specific purpose. If it is being exploited in ways that are contrary to that purpose, or otherwise undesirable, the government should be looking at whether the copyright that they granted should be limited or rescinded.
getnormality 2y ago
> why shouldn't they be able to charge the fees they want? It's their platform. Why shouldn't a country's people, through their government, be able to make rules about how Apple's products should work in their country? It's their country. They think it's good for consumers for Apple's ecosystem to be more open to independent developers. I think it's easy to understand that, fears of Grandma loading a non-Apple approved app notwithstanding.
Nursie 2y ago
I'm with you until the fees part. I like the fact I can more or less assume security. I really like the fact that my mum can. Any way of unlocking your phone for sideloading seems almost bound to be an avenue for scammers to talk people into installing malware. But when a platform is so widespread, I don't think "they can charge whatever they like" is necessarily great. It's difficult because you want the market dynamic (if they charge too much, we'll just take our app elsewhere and people will move to that platform) to be present in at least some way, but at the same time the real world isn't that simple.
tmpz22 2y ago
> A big part of the reason I use Apple products is that they protect not only me, but my family who don't know what the implications of sideloading are. All iPhones contain developer mode settings that can be activated with a little song and dance and compromise security. There is zero chance any of your relatives will accidentally turn off these settings if they are not actively looking to do so. Sideloading could easily be put under this mantle. Potential counterargument: "What if my nephew falls for some sideloading phish scam when trying to download hacks for COD mobile? Then he would be encouraged to follow any list of steps to compromise his security" Response: If someone is going that far out of the way to compromise themselves no amount of bubble wrap is going to fix it.
- gjsman-1000 2y ago
  No, the counterargument, and why Apple will never do it, is this: Take an IPA (iOS Packaged Application). Remove the identifying markers, digital signature, change the bundle ID. Lo and behold, it’s indistinguishable compared to an app you developed yourself. Install and pirate away. On Android, it’s pretty well documented the majority of APK installs are piracy. Possibly over 90%. Apple will almost certainly, if necessary, allow 3rd party App Stores if the law requires - but direct IPA installation is a pirate’s dream, let alone the actual malware bundled with. Unless the law deliberately and specifically requires it, it’s not happening; and with the strong piracy connections, it’s very unlikely the law will ever specifically require that feature.
  - kelnos 2y ago
    That's a great reason why Apple (absent regulation) will never do it, but that's not really the point. I don't particularly care what Apple does or doesn't want. Software piracy is a fact of life. Attempting to protect against it, and eating whatever (possibly imagined losses) are costs of doing business. That's been that case as long as there have been personal computers. > On Android, it’s pretty well documented the majority of APK installs are piracy. How many of those would actually lead to a sale, though? This is the same argument the music and movie studios always trotted out, and it's just as invalid now. Many people just won't pay for things, and will otherwise do without.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
AnthonyMouse 2y ago
> A big part of the reason I use Apple products is that they protect not only me, but my family who don't know what the implications of sideloading are. I know that the apps my phone runs have been given the green light by Apple. Which is fine, you're not required to install sideloaded apps. You could even, for example, configure your phone to disable them in a way that can't be modified again without a factory reset. But why shouldn't someone else who wants something else be able to do something else? Notice that their ability to do it benefits you. Someone writes a crappy little open source app, without sideloading they don't even bother because the approval process is too much of a barrier. With it, they throw it up on github and then a dozen other nerds use it for a while and make contributions, until it starts getting popular and good. Then they have enough donations to pay somebody to push it through the approval process and you get to install it from the app store. But without that, it doesn't exist. > Is the 30% fee egregious? Maybe, but why shouldn't they be able to charge the fees they want? It's their platform. Corporations don't own you just because they sold you something. > And for those who don't agree with it, like Epic Games, maybe they can go and develop their own phone? Phone platforms have a strong network effect. Microsoft is a trillion dollar corporation that made a serious attempt to do this and failed, what hope does anyone smaller have? Two platforms that already existed when app stores became a thing (iOS an Android) still have a combined ~100% market share almost two decades later. "Just make your own phone" is like "just start your own phone network" in terms of viability for ordinary people. > Mandating Apple to allow sideloading is essentially saying "we have no hope of ever developing a competing open platform so we have to use law to force this American company to make us one." Okay, let's say you want to do that. The typical way to start a new platform is to create an abstraction over it that allows people to create apps that run on both your new platform and any incumbent platforms. Developers like this because they can use the new framework instead of having to create separate apps for each of the incumbent platforms, so they do, and then those apps also support your new platform and allow you to start building a network effect. Think Java, Qt, Gtk, HTML/JavaScript, etc. Then all you need is the ability for users to side load the new apps independent of the platform corporation who is going to discourage that sort of thing (as, for example, Apple does by making features available to native apps that aren't available to web apps). Which is the thing being requested.
dismalaf 2y ago
> Willing to have my mind changed on this: why should Apple be forced to allow sideloading? It's not about forcing Apple to do anything, it's about not preventing consumers from doing what they want with a device they bought.
pzo 2y ago
Does nobody in you family own MacOS or Windows? Because there you can install malicious apps so your point is selective. Also there were many malicious apps approved by apple - this days they do a lot of checks automatically so nothing prevents to do it (kind of like virus or malware scanner that would check something before installation). If you worry about your family why apple cannot provide some similar but simpler tooling like parental control where (non-tech savvy) family will have to ask you for confirmation? In his situation you would be some administrator or guardian but will much less permissions. Why bother? It's win win for user and developer because they can offer you something cheaper. They can advertise you that if you buy subscription from 1st hand it will be cheaper. It would also allow different business model - instead of monthly / yearly subscription you can charge for app one time and then maybe for big upgrade every few years. But it's not only that about the cost. You would be allowed to have apps that are not possible because would be rejected or cannot use private API that apple apps have. It would allow to have browser that support fullscreen mode, push notifications like android, better PWA support, WebGPU support. Faster cross platform apps (react-native) that allow access to JIT. 3rd party keyboard that allow much better voice transcription even locally (all 3rd part keyboard have it kind of broken right now because of API limitation) and the list goes on.
- throwaway290 2y ago
  > Does nobody in you family own MacOS or Windows? Because there you can install malicious apps so your point is selective. macOS doesn't allow that by default, though unlike iOS it is possible to social engineer users to launch shady apps > apps that are not possible because would be rejected or cannot use private API that apple apps have The range of spyware that will become possible is much bigger than potential new apps that somehow can do a good thing with a private API. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43197091 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43197091
  - pzo 2y ago
    As I said shady apps are/were also in App Store. Today they are not able to manually really review and detect all malicious apps. MacOS is still more open and the world didn't collapse. At minimum they could provide similar mechanism like MacOS but on iOS. 1) apps still notarised so if app later detected to be malicious it can be remotely uninstalled 2) if it's you grandma/grandpa phone - allow to setup iphone as more limited parental control that only other from family can install apps 3) do automatic apps scanning before installation to detect app is malicious - revoke developer certificate in this case or ask them for clarification
scojjac 2y ago
Modern phones are more like general purpose computers than game consoles. The console argument from Apple is disingenuous and gets far too little pushback from courts. Same goes for their argument that developers who don't like the App Store rules should make web apps — but limits Safari support for PWAs and limits third-party browsers to an older, slower JavaScript engine. From a different angle, corporations are not people; they do not inherently deserve the same consideration as people. Sideloading provides actual individuals the option of more flexibility in how they use the device they purchased with their hard-earned dollars. Sideloading also provides the freedom to continue to install apps that might be removed due to government pressure. "It's their platform" holds absolutely no weight as an argument in my mind; it's reflects excessive deference to corporations. Apple should be forced because the real-world use of devices they make is broader than they argue in court, because it is a company not a person, and because other actions it takes restrict the ability of developers to take advantage of the alternative Apple itself promotes. Less bureaucracy is the solution yet the United States, famously lazy about regulating tech, has managed to support only two truly viable mobile operating systems. Not even Microsoft wants to be in the game. This indicates that the bar is much higher than "they should just go make their own" and therefore we can expect more of the behemoths.
- VogonPoetry 2y ago
  For those complaining about not allowing 3rd Party JIT engines for 3rd Party Browsers. Please consider the vulnerability track records for Google Chrome, Mozilla Firefox and Safari: I'm taking the best year for all of these (2024) - there are far worse years in the past 5 that could have been picked. Chrome had 107 vulnerabilities that were Overflow or Memory Corruption. That is a vulnerability every 3.4 days. [0] Mozilla had 52 vulnerabilities that were Overflow or memory Corruption. This is a vulnerability about every 7 days. [1] Safari had 10 vulnerabilities that were Overflow or Memory Corruption. This is a vulnerability about every 36 days. [2] Sources: [0] <https://www.cvedetails.com/product/15031/Google-Chrome.html?vendor_id=1224 https://www.cvedetails.com/product/15031/Google-Chrome.html?...> [1] <https://www.cvedetails.com/product/3264/Mozilla-Firefox.html?vendor_id=452 https://www.cvedetails.com/product/3264/Mozilla-Firefox.html...> [2] <https://www.cvedetails.com/product/2935/Apple-Safari.html?vendor_id=49 https://www.cvedetails.com/product/2935/Apple-Safari.html?ve...>
m463 2y ago
why should you have to ask apple for permission to run software on your device?
zigzag312 2y ago
Because it's not a self-contained product. Should ISP decide what websites are you allowed to visit? It's their platform. And for those who don't agree with it can use another ISP.
whalabi 2y ago
An analogy: Imagine you bought a house from HomeCorp but if you want to buy furniture or anything else that goes in your house, food, toilet paper, etc, it has to be from HomeCorp, and they take a huge cut. Furniture prices will be higher. You can expect everything that goes in your house to cost more. If you find a cool couch from IKEA, you can't put it in your house. You're not allowed because HomeCorp says so. There's no reason why IKEA can't just ship you a couch but HomeCorp says they haven't tested it so they don't know if it meets their standards. But they don't even LET YOU make your own decision about what goes in your house. IKEA could technically build their own house selling operation but that's a massive undertaking and is incredibly expensive. Not only that but homes built by HomeCorp have all these features that suck unless you use HomeCorp for other things like your car, or your job. Your car just works a little less well if it's not a HomeCorp car - but only if you have a HomeCorp house, otherwise it's totally fine. If your friends don't have a HomeCorp house it's clunkier to have them over, they have to jump through hoops or get a worse experience. They can't send you videos in high definition. Because HomeCorp wants them to have a house from them. ... Honestly I just convinced myself. They make it so inconvenient to use any other option that you're strongly pressured to use them. Then because you are, they force decisions on you that you might not want, and take a massive cut of money. It's all shady business practices that are incredibly unfair and result in less economic freedom.
hagbard_c 2y ago
What's so bad about giving people the choice to do something to a device they bought? If they want to have the option to circumvent the walled garden that does not have any effect on you who resides inside those walls. Mandating a hardware vendor to make its products useable outside of the hardware vendor's control is just common sense and it is the way things tend to work after the resistance of colluding vendors has been broken down. Car vendors are not allowed to block car owners from using third-party parts but do not have the obligation to service those parts. White goods vendors similarly are not allowed to lock in white goods owners into using only 'certified' consumables and spare parts. Why do you feel compelled to try to justify these attempts by this vendor to be treated differently? If you feel happy inside the walls they built you why do you insist others remain inside as well? Mandating Apple to allow sideloading is not at all like saying there is no hope of developing an open platform - a silly statement given the dominance of such a platform on the world market. It is like telling Ford they can not force car owners they're only allowed to use Ford fuel, use a Ford navigation system, use Ford tyres, Ford oil, Ford customisation parts, Ford anything. It is like telling Chevrolet they do not get to syphon off 30% of the revenue a cab driver earns when he uses his vehicle to transport customers. It is like telling GM they're to refrain from mandating drivers only to shop at GM-approved stores, taking 30% of the revenue generated. That they only can have their vehicles serviced by GM dealers. Many of these things have been tried on the market, tried in court to be forbidden by law. Owners of these products still can choose to use only 'genuine' parts and consumables, only buy service from vendor-approved providers just like you would still be able to remain inside the walled garden even if others prefer the freedom outside of those walls. Why defend the indefensible?
aja12 2y ago
> A big part of the reason I use Apple products is that they protect not only me, but my family who don't know what the implications of sideloading are. I know that the apps my phone runs have been given the green light by Apple. The malware my family is most exposed to nowadays have names: Onedrive, iCloud, Google Drive. They are all designed to collect all the user's data, are all opt-out, opting out is filled with dark patterns. And regarding dark patterns, having recently gone through the motions of downloading all my data and then deleting my X, Facebook, Instagram, Microsoft, Google and Apple accounts, I can confidently say that Apple is by far the _worst_. Yes, when it comes to exercising one's rights, Apple is worst than even _Facebook_. Users are much less exposed to non-branded malware nowadays, as the incentives to torrent random crap have mostly disappeared, and protection against spam/fishing has improved.

by cedws 2y ago

_aavaa_ 2y ago

> why shouldn't they be able to charge the fees they want? It's their platform. Wrong. I argue it's my phone. Why shouldn't I be allowed to install what I want on it? Why stop at app for 30% fees? It puts a lot of work into Safari too, why not 30% of every purchase made through safari? > Mandating Apple to allow sideloading is essentially saying ... that it should allow users do on their iOS devices what they can do on their macOS devices.

cedws 2y ago
>Wrong. I argue it's my phone. Why shouldn't I be allowed to install what I want on it? It's your phone that you bought from Apple with full knowledge of the restrictions beforehand. If you wanted a phone with more freedom you could have bought another device and voted with your wallet, but you didn't. >that it should allow users do on their iOS devices what they can do on their macOS devices. Software limitations are not exclusive to Apple. They're everywhere. For instance, manufacturers intentionally kneecap CPUs/GPUs so they can sell the same chips from the same wafer at different price points. Why aren't they targeted too? You bought the whole chip but you don't get to use it.
- do_not_redeem 2y ago
  > If you wanted a phone with more freedom you could have bought another device and voted with your wallet, but you didn't. Sounds like a "we should improve society somewhat" moment. https://i.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/001/259/257/342.png https://i.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/001/259/257/342... If you have two choices and one is barely better than the other, you think people shouldn't be allowed to acknowledge the negative aspects of the thing they chose?
  - roenxi 2y ago
    Overruling the world's premier phone-maker on questions of how to design a phone is not improving society. I'm giving Apple money specifically because they designed the phone. I don't want the EU trying to figure it out; they have a reverse-midas touch. Things touch ends up slumping. It is a very salient point that the reason they are issuing orders to a US company is because they "helped" all the EU companies make decisions until they were effectively forced out of the market with failed tech policies. If you want a phone built by someone who doesn't know how to design a phone, I'm sure there are already lots of tiny and irrelevant players already in the EU that you can patronise. The phone probably won't be particularly good though, evidenced by the fact that most people with a choice prefer to let Apple make all the decisions. Or various Asian groups who have a knack for tech.
    - bored13 2y ago
      In a similar vein, I dislike forcing of the USB-C port. I think we are going to approach a wall (especially concerning foldables) where the thickness of the port is a limiting factor and it should be up to the user to decide if its worth going thinner with a proprietary port. If customers choose to go with USB-C, a thicker phone, larger battery etc, that is all and well, I feel that will happen anyways. But it should be up to the customer & manufacturer, not the government.
      - jraph 2y ago
        > up to the customer & manufacturer Yeah, no. In this specific topic, we've had plenty of time to establish that it is isn't the case. Power is not balanced between individuals and manufacturers. USB is a horrible mess but for the first time in my life, I can travel with one charger that works with all the devices I take with me. I could even travel without a charger and be pretty sure I will be able to find one at the destination. People around me seem as happy as me about this and it wasn't the case as long as manufacturers were not forced to use USB. Nobody complains about the port form factor. That's simply not a concern.
sunshinerag 2y ago
You are allowed to NOT buy that phone? You are allowed to buy a phone that allows the use case you look for. Why should your use case be forced on rest?

kennysoona 2y ago

> why should Apple be forced to allow sideloading? Because it's unreasonable for any manufacturer to have that much control over how end users use their devices. > A big part of the reason I use Apple products is that they protect not only me, but my family who don't know what the implications of sideloading are. You can still use devices in nanny mode if needed. If your relatives can be talked into sideloading an app and bypassing the inevitable big scary warnings, they can be talked into other stuff equally as dangerous.

carlosjobim 2y ago
Car manufacturers have total control over how users use their devices. If you want to change any of that, you have to start making hardware changes. You can do that with an Apple device also, if you have the skills. But why?
- Dylan16807 2y ago
  Nobody has those skills because of how hostile they've made it to modification. That's the problem. And the more car manufacturers do similar things, they more they become the problem too and laws need to get involved.
  - carlosjobim 2y ago
    > That's the problem. That's not their problem.
    - Dylan16807 2y ago
      If they want to do a sale rather than a rental, it should be their problem.
- kennysoona 2y ago
  > Car manufacturers have total control over how users use their devices. If you want to change any of that, you have to start making hardware changes. Cars are not phones, and your analogy here is missing the point. No one should have to make hardware modifications because they want to put code on their computer without paying Apple for the privilege. It's not more complicated than that. As I said, you can still have your device in nanny mode if you need it.

gilgoomesh 2y ago

The argument to force side loading is the argument that Apple are using market position in phone hardware sales to control, and profit from, the adjacent market of software that runs on phones. Yes, you can run software on phones via a web browser. But Apple largely control the features of the web browsers that run on phones, too, and arguably limit those features so that browser apps are never quite as good as native apps. This is "gatekeeping" and while it isn't illegal in all jurisdictions, it is anti-consumer, hence the consumer backlash.

bamboozled 2y ago
If you don’t like it buy a “fair phone”. There is some freedom of choice here too. I want the freedom to choose a locked down phone for my family and myself to use without worrying about it being hacked. I write this as someone who is a major open source contributor and advocate. There are somethings I just want to work, and my primary phone is one of them. I have other play devices. I haven't checked in some time but why don't you just jailbreak your iphone if you want it to be "yours".
- _imnothere 2y ago
  > without worrying about it being hacked Are you implying that iPhone isn't "hackable"?
  - bamboozled 2y ago
    Under normal usage the answer is extremely rarely. I can't say the same for the myriad of various Windows and Android phones me and my family have had hacked over the years. I can totally imagine "side loading" meaning, my mother gets scammed into installing some malware and losing her savings.

do_not_redeem 2y ago

> they protect not only me, but my family who don't know what the implications of sideloading are 1. The app review process is largely ineffective. The idea that it protects anyone is a myth encouraged by Apple to feed their profit margins. https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2021/06/06/apple-app-store-scams-fraud/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2021/06/06/apple-a... 2. If Apple ever allows sideloading, it will inevitably involve installing Xcode, connecting your phone to your laptop with a USB cable, running obscure shell commands and clicking through scary warnings. Do you really think your grandparents are capable of doing this, let alone being tricked into it?

diego_moita 2y ago

> why should Apple be forced to allow sideloading? From the perspective of software makers, to fight oligopsony: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oligopsony https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oligopsony

agnishom 2y ago
> why should Apple be forced to allow sideloading? Because it is too large in terms of market share. In an ideal world, there would be so many alternatives, that I could just choose whatever ecosystem I want. However, we can't really reach that state of affairs easily. Without interference, the gap between the phones that support software freedom and those which do not will increase. The "Apple should be allowed to set whatever terms" argument sounds like this: "We shouldn't impose any food safety or agricultural standards. If you care, you can just grow your own crops and cook your own food"
- cedws 2y ago
  I think the argument I'd like to make is that when there is a oligopsony, regulators should intervene to add more competitors to the sell side. In other words, fund competitors, instead of using law to directly twist the arms of companies. EU is already on a back footing. We are too reliant on American technology, and we don't have any players in the smartphone market. If consumers want something we should build it.

alwayslikethis 2y ago

> maybe they can go and develop their own phone? You don't like the phone system? Maybe you can go and make your own phone network. You don't like this forum? Go start your own forum. Do you see the problem here? Network monopolies are pretty much impossible for a newcomer to compete with, even for a rather resourceful entity, like Microsoft and their phones.

azov 2y ago

We may want to start thinking about smartphones as infrastructure. It’s not practical to run five sets of power lines to each house so that utility companies can compete in a free market. Thus utility companies are heavily regulated. But it’s also not practical for each person to carry five smartphones. So, maybe we need to regulate this space as well?..

cedws 2y ago
This makes sense but is twisting the arms of the infrastructure companies the way to go? Can't we just encourage free market dynamics? If open platforms are what the consumer wants, manufacturers will sell phones with open platforms and the consumer will decide what they want to buy. EU funding can help rebalance if needed by helping develop new competitors.
- zigzag312 2y ago
  > Can't we just encourage free market dynamics? 1) It's not a simple thing to do. 2) The opening of platforms can be considered a way of encouraging free market dynamics.
- bee_rider 2y ago
  EU voters decided to use regulations instead of the market. That’s their right. There’s no reason to give the market some magic position as the only way to do things.
- Nursie 2y ago
  > the consumer will decide what they want to buy Except people don't actually buy in a way that's consistent with enlightened self interest, making the free market at best a poor approximation to reality. Consumers buy what's advertised, what's 'influenced', what their friends have and what's shiny, ahead of what might actually be useful for them. Micro-level decisions people make rarely take into account macro-level consequences. This is not to say I think regulation is an amazing solution to everything, but more that I think there is a religiosity to free-market proponents that credits market participants and markets themselves with more than their due.

WheatMillington 2y ago

Tim Cook isn't gonna read this bro

kernal 2y ago
Yeah, but Tim Apple might.

frenchtoast8 2y ago

I've never wanted to sideload an app until recently. I discovered that the recent generations of iPhones and iPads can achieve native performance with the Dolphinios GC/Wii emulator, but the app can only be sideloaded. Apple doesn't have a problem with emulation in general (there are NES/SNES/etc emulators available for download in the App Store), but they do not allow JIT compilation for security reasons which these newer generation emulators require. Currently sideloading is a pain so I still haven't done it. If it becomes as easy as Android I personally would be pretty happy just for this use case. Ironically I'm a bit disappointed by how powerful the hardware is getting these days because of the software limitations. Don't get me wrong, I fully admit my days of running custom OSes is over, I only use my iPad as an entertainment device and am happy to keep it very simple. I just feel power users should be able to sideload an app or two without needing to use an Xcode debugger or whatever.

ApolloFortyNine 2y ago

>A big part of the reason I use Apple products is that they protect not only me, but my family who don't know what the implications of sideloading are. I know that the apps my phone runs have been given the green light by Apple. This argument always reads like satire, but comes up a lot. You're essentially arguing freedom is dangerous because some people aren't smart enough to handle it. Apple could always do what Android does and gate it behind a hidden setting. No one is arguing your web browser should be allowed to auto install apps at will, or whatever it is you may be picturing. >Mandating Apple to allow sideloading is essentially saying "we have no hope of ever developing a competing open platform so we have to use law to force this American company to make us one." I'm confused on this argument, do you not know Android exists? The issue is that if you want to reach the majority of the public, you have to also support Apple devices, and you have to bend over backwards to their 30% cut and arbitrary rules. Thank god this attitude wasn't around when Windows was taking off. I think we'd seriously have set back society if every Windows application had to pay Microsoft a 30% fee, and had to pass Microsoft approval.

Nursie 2y ago
> You're essentially arguing freedom is dangerous because some people aren't smart enough to handle it. When it comes to mobile phone apps, 100%. My mum (77) can just about operate a phone, someone who gained her trust (and scammers are very good at that these days) could likely talk her into installing pretty much whatever, and she'd have no idea what was going on. Her only defence in such a situation would likely be giving up because she didn't understand how to follow the instructions. I also have family with learning disabilities. The idea that we are all fully able, autonomous, powerful and informed at all times is a fantasy. For some people a locked device is pretty much a godsend. I'm not saying the fees are reasonable, mind. And maybe there is an argument that apple should sell locked and unlocked versions of the phone or something.
- _carbyau_ 2y ago
  You mums problem is not the phone. Her problem is random strangers being able to "talk her into" whatever and as an adult she is still responsible for her actions. At some point, we have to accept that to operate things in mainstream society requires capability. It is sad when aging parents no longer meet that minimal bar, but it is part of aging for all of us if we live long enough. At some point, we can no longer drive a car, we can hand over responsibility for finances, and medical decisions. We need a better way to manage old people on their phones. Maybe sideloading AND "old person mode" should be options on all phones.

modeless 2y ago

You supposedly "own" the iPhone that you purchased. Why shouldn't you be able to install the software you prefer? Apple's control of your iPhone hardware is not a natural state. They maintain that control through the power of copyright, granted by the government. Modifying iOS and iPhones to allow running arbitrary software is feasible, but distributing such modified copies is illegal due to Apple's copyright, enforced by the courts. If anyone could copy and modify iOS at will then they would soon lose that control. Copyright is not an inalienable right like the right of ownership of real property. It is a monopoly granted by the government for a specific purpose. If it is being exploited in ways that are contrary to that purpose, or otherwise undesirable, the government should be looking at whether the copyright that they granted should be limited or rescinded.

getnormality 2y ago

> why shouldn't they be able to charge the fees they want? It's their platform. Why shouldn't a country's people, through their government, be able to make rules about how Apple's products should work in their country? It's their country. They think it's good for consumers for Apple's ecosystem to be more open to independent developers. I think it's easy to understand that, fears of Grandma loading a non-Apple approved app notwithstanding.

Nursie 2y ago

I'm with you until the fees part. I like the fact I can more or less assume security. I really like the fact that my mum can. Any way of unlocking your phone for sideloading seems almost bound to be an avenue for scammers to talk people into installing malware. But when a platform is so widespread, I don't think "they can charge whatever they like" is necessarily great. It's difficult because you want the market dynamic (if they charge too much, we'll just take our app elsewhere and people will move to that platform) to be present in at least some way, but at the same time the real world isn't that simple.

tmpz22 2y ago

> A big part of the reason I use Apple products is that they protect not only me, but my family who don't know what the implications of sideloading are. All iPhones contain developer mode settings that can be activated with a little song and dance and compromise security. There is zero chance any of your relatives will accidentally turn off these settings if they are not actively looking to do so. Sideloading could easily be put under this mantle. Potential counterargument: "What if my nephew falls for some sideloading phish scam when trying to download hacks for COD mobile? Then he would be encouraged to follow any list of steps to compromise his security" Response: If someone is going that far out of the way to compromise themselves no amount of bubble wrap is going to fix it.

gjsman-1000 2y ago
No, the counterargument, and why Apple will never do it, is this: Take an IPA (iOS Packaged Application). Remove the identifying markers, digital signature, change the bundle ID. Lo and behold, it’s indistinguishable compared to an app you developed yourself. Install and pirate away. On Android, it’s pretty well documented the majority of APK installs are piracy. Possibly over 90%. Apple will almost certainly, if necessary, allow 3rd party App Stores if the law requires - but direct IPA installation is a pirate’s dream, let alone the actual malware bundled with. Unless the law deliberately and specifically requires it, it’s not happening; and with the strong piracy connections, it’s very unlikely the law will ever specifically require that feature.
- kelnos 2y ago
  That's a great reason why Apple (absent regulation) will never do it, but that's not really the point. I don't particularly care what Apple does or doesn't want. Software piracy is a fact of life. Attempting to protect against it, and eating whatever (possibly imagined losses) are costs of doing business. That's been that case as long as there have been personal computers. > On Android, it’s pretty well documented the majority of APK installs are piracy. How many of those would actually lead to a sale, though? This is the same argument the music and movie studios always trotted out, and it's just as invalid now. Many people just won't pay for things, and will otherwise do without.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

AnthonyMouse 2y ago

> A big part of the reason I use Apple products is that they protect not only me, but my family who don't know what the implications of sideloading are. I know that the apps my phone runs have been given the green light by Apple. Which is fine, you're not required to install sideloaded apps. You could even, for example, configure your phone to disable them in a way that can't be modified again without a factory reset. But why shouldn't someone else who wants something else be able to do something else? Notice that their ability to do it benefits you. Someone writes a crappy little open source app, without sideloading they don't even bother because the approval process is too much of a barrier. With it, they throw it up on github and then a dozen other nerds use it for a while and make contributions, until it starts getting popular and good. Then they have enough donations to pay somebody to push it through the approval process and you get to install it from the app store. But without that, it doesn't exist. > Is the 30% fee egregious? Maybe, but why shouldn't they be able to charge the fees they want? It's their platform. Corporations don't own you just because they sold you something. > And for those who don't agree with it, like Epic Games, maybe they can go and develop their own phone? Phone platforms have a strong network effect. Microsoft is a trillion dollar corporation that made a serious attempt to do this and failed, what hope does anyone smaller have? Two platforms that already existed when app stores became a thing (iOS an Android) still have a combined ~100% market share almost two decades later. "Just make your own phone" is like "just start your own phone network" in terms of viability for ordinary people. > Mandating Apple to allow sideloading is essentially saying "we have no hope of ever developing a competing open platform so we have to use law to force this American company to make us one." Okay, let's say you want to do that. The typical way to start a new platform is to create an abstraction over it that allows people to create apps that run on both your new platform and any incumbent platforms. Developers like this because they can use the new framework instead of having to create separate apps for each of the incumbent platforms, so they do, and then those apps also support your new platform and allow you to start building a network effect. Think Java, Qt, Gtk, HTML/JavaScript, etc. Then all you need is the ability for users to side load the new apps independent of the platform corporation who is going to discourage that sort of thing (as, for example, Apple does by making features available to native apps that aren't available to web apps). Which is the thing being requested.

dismalaf 2y ago

> Willing to have my mind changed on this: why should Apple be forced to allow sideloading? It's not about forcing Apple to do anything, it's about not preventing consumers from doing what they want with a device they bought.

pzo 2y ago

Does nobody in you family own MacOS or Windows? Because there you can install malicious apps so your point is selective. Also there were many malicious apps approved by apple - this days they do a lot of checks automatically so nothing prevents to do it (kind of like virus or malware scanner that would check something before installation). If you worry about your family why apple cannot provide some similar but simpler tooling like parental control where (non-tech savvy) family will have to ask you for confirmation? In his situation you would be some administrator or guardian but will much less permissions. Why bother? It's win win for user and developer because they can offer you something cheaper. They can advertise you that if you buy subscription from 1st hand it will be cheaper. It would also allow different business model - instead of monthly / yearly subscription you can charge for app one time and then maybe for big upgrade every few years. But it's not only that about the cost. You would be allowed to have apps that are not possible because would be rejected or cannot use private API that apple apps have. It would allow to have browser that support fullscreen mode, push notifications like android, better PWA support, WebGPU support. Faster cross platform apps (react-native) that allow access to JIT. 3rd party keyboard that allow much better voice transcription even locally (all 3rd part keyboard have it kind of broken right now because of API limitation) and the list goes on.

throwaway290 2y ago
> Does nobody in you family own MacOS or Windows? Because there you can install malicious apps so your point is selective. macOS doesn't allow that by default, though unlike iOS it is possible to social engineer users to launch shady apps > apps that are not possible because would be rejected or cannot use private API that apple apps have The range of spyware that will become possible is much bigger than potential new apps that somehow can do a good thing with a private API. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43197091 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43197091
- pzo 2y ago
  As I said shady apps are/were also in App Store. Today they are not able to manually really review and detect all malicious apps. MacOS is still more open and the world didn't collapse. At minimum they could provide similar mechanism like MacOS but on iOS. 1) apps still notarised so if app later detected to be malicious it can be remotely uninstalled 2) if it's you grandma/grandpa phone - allow to setup iphone as more limited parental control that only other from family can install apps 3) do automatic apps scanning before installation to detect app is malicious - revoke developer certificate in this case or ask them for clarification

scojjac 2y ago

Modern phones are more like general purpose computers than game consoles. The console argument from Apple is disingenuous and gets far too little pushback from courts. Same goes for their argument that developers who don't like the App Store rules should make web apps — but limits Safari support for PWAs and limits third-party browsers to an older, slower JavaScript engine. From a different angle, corporations are not people; they do not inherently deserve the same consideration as people. Sideloading provides actual individuals the option of more flexibility in how they use the device they purchased with their hard-earned dollars. Sideloading also provides the freedom to continue to install apps that might be removed due to government pressure. "It's their platform" holds absolutely no weight as an argument in my mind; it's reflects excessive deference to corporations. Apple should be forced because the real-world use of devices they make is broader than they argue in court, because it is a company not a person, and because other actions it takes restrict the ability of developers to take advantage of the alternative Apple itself promotes. Less bureaucracy is the solution yet the United States, famously lazy about regulating tech, has managed to support only two truly viable mobile operating systems. Not even Microsoft wants to be in the game. This indicates that the bar is much higher than "they should just go make their own" and therefore we can expect more of the behemoths.

VogonPoetry 2y ago
For those complaining about not allowing 3rd Party JIT engines for 3rd Party Browsers. Please consider the vulnerability track records for Google Chrome, Mozilla Firefox and Safari: I'm taking the best year for all of these (2024) - there are far worse years in the past 5 that could have been picked. Chrome had 107 vulnerabilities that were Overflow or Memory Corruption. That is a vulnerability every 3.4 days. [0] Mozilla had 52 vulnerabilities that were Overflow or memory Corruption. This is a vulnerability about every 7 days. [1] Safari had 10 vulnerabilities that were Overflow or Memory Corruption. This is a vulnerability about every 36 days. [2] Sources: [0] <https://www.cvedetails.com/product/15031/Google-Chrome.html?vendor_id=1224 https://www.cvedetails.com/product/15031/Google-Chrome.html?...> [1] <https://www.cvedetails.com/product/3264/Mozilla-Firefox.html?vendor_id=452 https://www.cvedetails.com/product/3264/Mozilla-Firefox.html...> [2] <https://www.cvedetails.com/product/2935/Apple-Safari.html?vendor_id=49 https://www.cvedetails.com/product/2935/Apple-Safari.html?ve...>

m463 2y ago

why should you have to ask apple for permission to run software on your device?

zigzag312 2y ago

Because it's not a self-contained product. Should ISP decide what websites are you allowed to visit? It's their platform. And for those who don't agree with it can use another ISP.

whalabi 2y ago

An analogy: Imagine you bought a house from HomeCorp but if you want to buy furniture or anything else that goes in your house, food, toilet paper, etc, it has to be from HomeCorp, and they take a huge cut. Furniture prices will be higher. You can expect everything that goes in your house to cost more. If you find a cool couch from IKEA, you can't put it in your house. You're not allowed because HomeCorp says so. There's no reason why IKEA can't just ship you a couch but HomeCorp says they haven't tested it so they don't know if it meets their standards. But they don't even LET YOU make your own decision about what goes in your house. IKEA could technically build their own house selling operation but that's a massive undertaking and is incredibly expensive. Not only that but homes built by HomeCorp have all these features that suck unless you use HomeCorp for other things like your car, or your job. Your car just works a little less well if it's not a HomeCorp car - but only if you have a HomeCorp house, otherwise it's totally fine. If your friends don't have a HomeCorp house it's clunkier to have them over, they have to jump through hoops or get a worse experience. They can't send you videos in high definition. Because HomeCorp wants them to have a house from them. ... Honestly I just convinced myself. They make it so inconvenient to use any other option that you're strongly pressured to use them. Then because you are, they force decisions on you that you might not want, and take a massive cut of money. It's all shady business practices that are incredibly unfair and result in less economic freedom.

hagbard_c 2y ago

What's so bad about giving people the choice to do something to a device they bought? If they want to have the option to circumvent the walled garden that does not have any effect on you who resides inside those walls. Mandating a hardware vendor to make its products useable outside of the hardware vendor's control is just common sense and it is the way things tend to work after the resistance of colluding vendors has been broken down. Car vendors are not allowed to block car owners from using third-party parts but do not have the obligation to service those parts. White goods vendors similarly are not allowed to lock in white goods owners into using only 'certified' consumables and spare parts. Why do you feel compelled to try to justify these attempts by this vendor to be treated differently? If you feel happy inside the walls they built you why do you insist others remain inside as well? Mandating Apple to allow sideloading is not at all like saying there is no hope of developing an open platform - a silly statement given the dominance of such a platform on the world market. It is like telling Ford they can not force car owners they're only allowed to use Ford fuel, use a Ford navigation system, use Ford tyres, Ford oil, Ford customisation parts, Ford anything. It is like telling Chevrolet they do not get to syphon off 30% of the revenue a cab driver earns when he uses his vehicle to transport customers. It is like telling GM they're to refrain from mandating drivers only to shop at GM-approved stores, taking 30% of the revenue generated. That they only can have their vehicles serviced by GM dealers. Many of these things have been tried on the market, tried in court to be forbidden by law. Owners of these products still can choose to use only 'genuine' parts and consumables, only buy service from vendor-approved providers just like you would still be able to remain inside the walled garden even if others prefer the freedom outside of those walls. Why defend the indefensible?

aja12 2y ago

> A big part of the reason I use Apple products is that they protect not only me, but my family who don't know what the implications of sideloading are. I know that the apps my phone runs have been given the green light by Apple. The malware my family is most exposed to nowadays have names: Onedrive, iCloud, Google Drive. They are all designed to collect all the user's data, are all opt-out, opting out is filled with dark patterns. And regarding dark patterns, having recently gone through the motions of downloading all my data and then deleting my X, Facebook, Instagram, Microsoft, Google and Apple accounts, I can confidently say that Apple is by far the _worst_. Yes, when it comes to exercising one's rights, Apple is worst than even _Facebook_. Users are much less exposed to non-branded malware nowadays, as the incentives to torrent random crap have mostly disappeared, and protection against spam/fishing has improved.