6 ms·

This is probably a controversial opinion but I actually use my iPhone because it's locked down with a curated app marketplace and secure payment system. I don't

This is probably a controversial opinion but I actually use my iPhone because it's locked down with a curated app marketplace and secure payment system. I don't want alternative payment methods or app stores. So I find it distasteful that other companies are seeking to control Apple's product design through the legal system. They're essentially trying to make it impossible to purchase a product I want, which is more monopolistic than the current status quo. iPhones do not have any sort of monopoly on phones. If you want that, you can purchase any number of Android devices.

TulliusCicero 1y ago
You're free to keep your own device locked down yourself and to only use Apple's own app store if you want.
- _benton 1y ago
  If they have to make changes in software to allow an "unlocked" device that makes it inherently less secure.
  - Velorivox 1y ago
    Exactly. Jailbreaking is WAI for the folks who want the “Android experience” on an iPhone. Much of this drama is merely corporations vying to “get theirs” from the ecosystem, without understanding that the extant nature of the ecosystem is why it is the most valuable platform by user spend (that is to say, they care little for the consumer). Shouting "monopoly" from the rooftops is not enough to affect real change. If I wish not to pay property taxes, my options include moving to another state, but courts do not recognize a general right to challenge tax liability on the grounds of personal preference or disagreement with taxation. Perhaps it's worth sparing a thought as to why, and who ultimately empowered that stance. Plus, this is often the “if I can’t have it no one can” line of thought, sometimes from companies engaging in anticompetitive practices themselves (like Epic Games). Edit: WAI stands for working as intended
    - whstl 1y ago
      I'm all for corporations "trying to get theirs" if it benefits the rest of society. iPhones are a premium product and they don't have a natural right to 30% of transactions going through it if the participants don't want Apple to know about it. > It’s the “if I can’t have it no one can” line of thought That describes what you and _benton are advocating. "If I can't have the phone be the way I want, no one can".
      - _benton 1y ago
        That's exactly backwards. I have no desire to limit the types of phones you can purchase, and you have an enormous amount of choices in phones outside Apple that provide essentially the same functionality, and can be as open as you wish. You wish to limit my ability to access a device that I want. I want a locked down phone, and third parties wish to intervene on a transaction between me and Apple so they can illegitimately get a piece of the pie.
        whstl 1y ago
        > You wish to limit my ability to access a device that I want. I want a locked down phone As others have repeatedly said, you can still opt to not use any other kind of app from outside the AppStore. But as I asked on another thread, as a thought experiment: What about we meet in the middle and governments force Apple to only "open" 50% of the phones, for the same price. Would that satisfy you? > third parties wish to intervene on a transaction between me and Apple so they can illegitimately get a piece of the pie. It's actually Apple that wants to intervene in transactions where I don't want them to be a part of. I don't want to pay 10 euros and give 3 to them.
        deleted 1y ago
        [deleted]
        ghusto 1y ago
        How about people who want a Mac (which is still "open" to the extent that it makes a difference), and therefore would also like an iPhone because of the propitiatory APIs Apple makes available solely to the iPhone? I don't particularly like my iPhone, in fact I see as a worse device in many ways to my old Android phone, but the interoperability with my Mac makes the trade-off worth it. So ironically, the only reason I want it is because of even _more_ anticompetitive practices. And yes, the day the Mac is as closed off as the iPhone, there will be zero Apple devices in this house.
  - deleted 1y ago
    [deleted]
- criddell 1y ago
  Until your employer or government requires a side-loaded app for you to do something that you need to do.
  - cosmic_cheese 1y ago
    Or you end up with companies (like Wal-mart) that decide that they don’t want to accept Apple Pay and become payment processors themselves, requiring you to install their app to do phone/watch payments. Congrats, you now need a whole boquet of payment apps and we’re back to it being easier to use physical credit cards. For some of these things, the consolidation was the whole point.
    - whstl 1y ago
      Since Walmart keeps popping up in other comments, I'll do devil's advocate using the exact same argument other people used: If you don't want to buy on Walmart and their custom payment system, then just go to a competitor. With that said: this is an unrealistic scenario. Walmart doesn't pay the famous 30% to ApplePay, only a regular CC-like fee (probably less). Also, physically they can just accept contact payments where they don't interact with Apple but it still works with the iPhone wallet. Online, they can just use credit cards instead of ApplePay, which iPhones have autofill for, and probably not lose much.
      - cosmic_cheese 1y ago
        That only works if competitors aren’t doing the same exact thing. There’s also situations where you don’t have a choice. In many parts of the US the only reasonably accessible store (and sometimes grocery store) is a Walmart.
        bigyabai 1y ago
        HN's time-honored scapegoat. "Corporations can't be trusted - that's why I trust Apple to fight them" is a ridiculous pretense to support consolidation. If Apple uses their de-facto position of privilege to demand people use their products as a solution, then they have become the problem. The exact same problem as Wal-mart insisting you download their wallet app. There is a real solution to this, where we codify our social limits through legislation and open standards to prevent these horrible "leopards ate my face" scenarios that everyone seems to hate so much. Or we could keep trusting Apple, and see how many F1 advertisements that nets us in the long-run.
McDyver 1y ago
It's not controversial, you can still have your walled garden as-is. The point of this is so that there is the possibility of escaping that walled garden, arguably welcoming more users into the ecosystem. Nothing would change for you. Just like android users can keep using all things Google, they have the possibility of installing apps from other sources.
- _benton 1y ago
  Except implementing the functionality to optionally open up your device to the world inherently makes it less secure. I now have no ability to purchase the phone that I want. It's actually decreasing consumer choice.
  - wizzwizz4 1y ago
    Are there any versions of iOS without jailbreak exploits in them? The security was always theatre.
    - _benton 1y ago
      I think all recent iOS versions have no public jailbreak exploits.
      - wizzwizz4 1y ago
        There are jailbreaks available for iOS 16.6.1 (released in 2023), and every iOS version prior to it. I count that as "recent", though I understand either way. Recent versions of iOS have specific anti-jailbreak mechanisms (anti-downgrade mechanisms, ephemeral root filesystems) which don't provide general security, so they're sort of cheating. These mechanisms just mean it's harder to use the vulnerabilities for good, without significantly stymieing evil. (And they aren't wholly effective, seeing as 16.6.1 contains all of them, and it's still got a semi-untethered jailbreak.)
  - McDyver 1y ago
    I'm sure you won't have to worry. If apple is incompetent and makes it less secure, I'm sure they'll fix it.
spogbiper 1y ago
if all you want is for your apps to come from Apple's store and your payments to go through Apple's system, you would simply continue to use only those options and allowing other people to have other options would not impact you. what you actually want is to force all developers to use Apple's distribution and payment systems, so that you can have every app and service from any provider delivered via your chosen mechanisms. that takes away freedom from developers and users who prefer other systems. it eliminates the market for anyone to make or use something better than your chosen options
- _benton 1y ago
  Developers are not forced into using Apple's distribution and payment systems because there are a multitude of other competing devices (with a higher market share mind you) they can and do develop for. If users and developers prefer other systems they can simply use those.
  - ghusto 1y ago
    Apple is not forced into doing business in Europe, because there are a multitude of other anticompetitive tolerant regions (much larger than Europe mind you) they can do business in. If Apple prefers anticompetitive practices, it can simply only do business in those regions.
    - _benton 1y ago
      I'm curious what becomes the breaking point for them to pull out of a region. Obviously it's about profit but at what point (if any) does it make profitable sense for them to leave?
      - Mattified 1y ago
        When there is no more profit and only loss, I reckon. Shareholders would not be happy if they pulled out of a region because they can only make $1 over $10. If that $1 is profit, they'll want it.
ghusto 1y ago
That's not how choice works.
mvdtnz 1y ago
Controversial maybe, but we have to suffer through this exact same incredibly odd opinion in every thread that makes contact with this issue. No one is asking you to leave your walled garden.
insane_dreamer 1y ago
Same here. I don’t want to hack around with my phone like I do my computer. I want it to just work and be as feee as possible from malware etc. Other considerations are a distant second.
deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
latexr 1y ago
> This is probably a controversial opinion Not very. Plenty of people, including on HN, agree with you. > but I actually use my iPhone because it's locked down with a curated app marketplace and secure payment system. Except it’s not. That argument would be much stronger if the App Store weren’t full of scammy predatory apps which regularly top the top grossing charts. > I don't want alternative payment methods or app stores. And I don’t want everything to be a subscription, yet here we are. Just like I have to avoid the majority of apps today, you’ll avoid other App Stores if that is what you want. You’re at a significant advantage because ignoring other stores is much easier, and opening up the iPhone to third-party stores has an effect on the policies of the main App Store. This is plainly demonstrated by the acceptance of the emulator from the creator of an alternative store. So even by not using those third-party ones, you’re benefiting. > They're essentially trying to make it impossible to purchase a product I want, which is more monopolistic than the current status quo. That doesn’t make sense. There’s no monopoly on a product which doesn’t exist. > iPhones do not have any sort of monopoly on phones. You don’t have to be a monopoly to be harmful to consumers. Companies have realised that long ago and it’s time consumers do too.
- noirscape 1y ago
  > Except it’s not. That argument would be much stronger if the App Store weren’t full of scammy predatory apps which regularly top the top grossing charts. Not just that - they also actively interfere with search results for essential apps people need. Looking up government or banking apps in the iOS app store will always surface either dodgy insurance sellers or dodgy banks that aren't the one you want to use before the actual app you want to download. The App Store's curation is absolutely horrendous - these are also bought/sponsored placements, meaning Apple is actively profiting off of people being led to these sorts of misleading apps.
mihaaly 1y ago
iPhone's other aspects would still remain comfortably locked down and strictly controlled for you by them if there was the opt in for those interested to have alternative ways of paying for subscriptions. I could hardly believe you only pay through Apple for everything, I mean everything, as THE trustful, others are not trusted, not using other safe payment methods for some products due to security concerns. Not only Apple is secure in this regard. As there are opt ins on iPhone for so many highly unsecure matters, you could share the most sensitive data with the individual apps with a flick if you wish (sharing personal and very sensitive data, sometimes personal data of others without their consent, like contacts) it is very hard to understand why this particular opt in is ringing your alarm bells of security irrevocably lost and get locked out completely ("impossible to purchase product") that hard.... You can have your choice of not choosing still, while Apple's product design would otherwise remain intact in its current form. Your arguments are very inconsistent.
jajuuka 1y ago
This is how you know Apple's marketing is effective. When users think they have a sense of security by using Apple's apps and apps on Apple's store and advocate against competition against Apple.

TulliusCicero 1y ago

You're free to keep your own device locked down yourself and to only use Apple's own app store if you want.

_benton 1y ago
If they have to make changes in software to allow an "unlocked" device that makes it inherently less secure.
- Velorivox 1y ago
  Exactly. Jailbreaking is WAI for the folks who want the “Android experience” on an iPhone. Much of this drama is merely corporations vying to “get theirs” from the ecosystem, without understanding that the extant nature of the ecosystem is why it is the most valuable platform by user spend (that is to say, they care little for the consumer). Shouting "monopoly" from the rooftops is not enough to affect real change. If I wish not to pay property taxes, my options include moving to another state, but courts do not recognize a general right to challenge tax liability on the grounds of personal preference or disagreement with taxation. Perhaps it's worth sparing a thought as to why, and who ultimately empowered that stance. Plus, this is often the “if I can’t have it no one can” line of thought, sometimes from companies engaging in anticompetitive practices themselves (like Epic Games). Edit: WAI stands for working as intended
  - whstl 1y ago
    I'm all for corporations "trying to get theirs" if it benefits the rest of society. iPhones are a premium product and they don't have a natural right to 30% of transactions going through it if the participants don't want Apple to know about it. > It’s the “if I can’t have it no one can” line of thought That describes what you and _benton are advocating. "If I can't have the phone be the way I want, no one can".
    - _benton 1y ago
      That's exactly backwards. I have no desire to limit the types of phones you can purchase, and you have an enormous amount of choices in phones outside Apple that provide essentially the same functionality, and can be as open as you wish. You wish to limit my ability to access a device that I want. I want a locked down phone, and third parties wish to intervene on a transaction between me and Apple so they can illegitimately get a piece of the pie.
      - whstl 1y ago
        > You wish to limit my ability to access a device that I want. I want a locked down phone As others have repeatedly said, you can still opt to not use any other kind of app from outside the AppStore. But as I asked on another thread, as a thought experiment: What about we meet in the middle and governments force Apple to only "open" 50% of the phones, for the same price. Would that satisfy you? > third parties wish to intervene on a transaction between me and Apple so they can illegitimately get a piece of the pie. It's actually Apple that wants to intervene in transactions where I don't want them to be a part of. I don't want to pay 10 euros and give 3 to them.
      - deleted 1y ago
        [deleted]
      - ghusto 1y ago
        How about people who want a Mac (which is still "open" to the extent that it makes a difference), and therefore would also like an iPhone because of the propitiatory APIs Apple makes available solely to the iPhone? I don't particularly like my iPhone, in fact I see as a worse device in many ways to my old Android phone, but the interoperability with my Mac makes the trade-off worth it. So ironically, the only reason I want it is because of even _more_ anticompetitive practices. And yes, the day the Mac is as closed off as the iPhone, there will be zero Apple devices in this house.
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
criddell 1y ago
Until your employer or government requires a side-loaded app for you to do something that you need to do.
- cosmic_cheese 1y ago
  Or you end up with companies (like Wal-mart) that decide that they don’t want to accept Apple Pay and become payment processors themselves, requiring you to install their app to do phone/watch payments. Congrats, you now need a whole boquet of payment apps and we’re back to it being easier to use physical credit cards. For some of these things, the consolidation was the whole point.
  - whstl 1y ago
    Since Walmart keeps popping up in other comments, I'll do devil's advocate using the exact same argument other people used: If you don't want to buy on Walmart and their custom payment system, then just go to a competitor. With that said: this is an unrealistic scenario. Walmart doesn't pay the famous 30% to ApplePay, only a regular CC-like fee (probably less). Also, physically they can just accept contact payments where they don't interact with Apple but it still works with the iPhone wallet. Online, they can just use credit cards instead of ApplePay, which iPhones have autofill for, and probably not lose much.
    - cosmic_cheese 1y ago
      That only works if competitors aren’t doing the same exact thing. There’s also situations where you don’t have a choice. In many parts of the US the only reasonably accessible store (and sometimes grocery store) is a Walmart.
      - bigyabai 1y ago
        HN's time-honored scapegoat. "Corporations can't be trusted - that's why I trust Apple to fight them" is a ridiculous pretense to support consolidation. If Apple uses their de-facto position of privilege to demand people use their products as a solution, then they have become the problem. The exact same problem as Wal-mart insisting you download their wallet app. There is a real solution to this, where we codify our social limits through legislation and open standards to prevent these horrible "leopards ate my face" scenarios that everyone seems to hate so much. Or we could keep trusting Apple, and see how many F1 advertisements that nets us in the long-run.

McDyver 1y ago

It's not controversial, you can still have your walled garden as-is. The point of this is so that there is the possibility of escaping that walled garden, arguably welcoming more users into the ecosystem. Nothing would change for you. Just like android users can keep using all things Google, they have the possibility of installing apps from other sources.

_benton 1y ago
Except implementing the functionality to optionally open up your device to the world inherently makes it less secure. I now have no ability to purchase the phone that I want. It's actually decreasing consumer choice.
- wizzwizz4 1y ago
  Are there any versions of iOS without jailbreak exploits in them? The security was always theatre.
  - _benton 1y ago
    I think all recent iOS versions have no public jailbreak exploits.
    - wizzwizz4 1y ago
      There are jailbreaks available for iOS 16.6.1 (released in 2023), and every iOS version prior to it. I count that as "recent", though I understand either way. Recent versions of iOS have specific anti-jailbreak mechanisms (anti-downgrade mechanisms, ephemeral root filesystems) which don't provide general security, so they're sort of cheating. These mechanisms just mean it's harder to use the vulnerabilities for good, without significantly stymieing evil. (And they aren't wholly effective, seeing as 16.6.1 contains all of them, and it's still got a semi-untethered jailbreak.)
- McDyver 1y ago
  I'm sure you won't have to worry. If apple is incompetent and makes it less secure, I'm sure they'll fix it.

spogbiper 1y ago

if all you want is for your apps to come from Apple's store and your payments to go through Apple's system, you would simply continue to use only those options and allowing other people to have other options would not impact you. what you actually want is to force all developers to use Apple's distribution and payment systems, so that you can have every app and service from any provider delivered via your chosen mechanisms. that takes away freedom from developers and users who prefer other systems. it eliminates the market for anyone to make or use something better than your chosen options

_benton 1y ago
Developers are not forced into using Apple's distribution and payment systems because there are a multitude of other competing devices (with a higher market share mind you) they can and do develop for. If users and developers prefer other systems they can simply use those.
- ghusto 1y ago
  Apple is not forced into doing business in Europe, because there are a multitude of other anticompetitive tolerant regions (much larger than Europe mind you) they can do business in. If Apple prefers anticompetitive practices, it can simply only do business in those regions.
  - _benton 1y ago
    I'm curious what becomes the breaking point for them to pull out of a region. Obviously it's about profit but at what point (if any) does it make profitable sense for them to leave?
    - Mattified 1y ago
      When there is no more profit and only loss, I reckon. Shareholders would not be happy if they pulled out of a region because they can only make $1 over $10. If that $1 is profit, they'll want it.

ghusto 1y ago

That's not how choice works.

mvdtnz 1y ago

Controversial maybe, but we have to suffer through this exact same incredibly odd opinion in every thread that makes contact with this issue. No one is asking you to leave your walled garden.

insane_dreamer 1y ago

Same here. I don’t want to hack around with my phone like I do my computer. I want it to just work and be as feee as possible from malware etc. Other considerations are a distant second.

deleted 1y ago

[deleted]

latexr 1y ago

> This is probably a controversial opinion Not very. Plenty of people, including on HN, agree with you. > but I actually use my iPhone because it's locked down with a curated app marketplace and secure payment system. Except it’s not. That argument would be much stronger if the App Store weren’t full of scammy predatory apps which regularly top the top grossing charts. > I don't want alternative payment methods or app stores. And I don’t want everything to be a subscription, yet here we are. Just like I have to avoid the majority of apps today, you’ll avoid other App Stores if that is what you want. You’re at a significant advantage because ignoring other stores is much easier, and opening up the iPhone to third-party stores has an effect on the policies of the main App Store. This is plainly demonstrated by the acceptance of the emulator from the creator of an alternative store. So even by not using those third-party ones, you’re benefiting. > They're essentially trying to make it impossible to purchase a product I want, which is more monopolistic than the current status quo. That doesn’t make sense. There’s no monopoly on a product which doesn’t exist. > iPhones do not have any sort of monopoly on phones. You don’t have to be a monopoly to be harmful to consumers. Companies have realised that long ago and it’s time consumers do too.

noirscape 1y ago
> Except it’s not. That argument would be much stronger if the App Store weren’t full of scammy predatory apps which regularly top the top grossing charts. Not just that - they also actively interfere with search results for essential apps people need. Looking up government or banking apps in the iOS app store will always surface either dodgy insurance sellers or dodgy banks that aren't the one you want to use before the actual app you want to download. The App Store's curation is absolutely horrendous - these are also bought/sponsored placements, meaning Apple is actively profiting off of people being led to these sorts of misleading apps.

mihaaly 1y ago

iPhone's other aspects would still remain comfortably locked down and strictly controlled for you by them if there was the opt in for those interested to have alternative ways of paying for subscriptions. I could hardly believe you only pay through Apple for everything, I mean everything, as THE trustful, others are not trusted, not using other safe payment methods for some products due to security concerns. Not only Apple is secure in this regard. As there are opt ins on iPhone for so many highly unsecure matters, you could share the most sensitive data with the individual apps with a flick if you wish (sharing personal and very sensitive data, sometimes personal data of others without their consent, like contacts) it is very hard to understand why this particular opt in is ringing your alarm bells of security irrevocably lost and get locked out completely ("impossible to purchase product") that hard.... You can have your choice of not choosing still, while Apple's product design would otherwise remain intact in its current form. Your arguments are very inconsistent.

jajuuka 1y ago

This is how you know Apple's marketing is effective. When users think they have a sense of security by using Apple's apps and apps on Apple's store and advocate against competition against Apple.