5 ms·

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, argu

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.
- fsflover 1y ago
  > implementing the functionality to optionally open up your device to the world inherently makes it less secure Are you saying that Qubes OS is less secure than iOS?
hbn 1y ago
> Nothing would change for you. If my apps are changing, yes it is changing for me. Right now I can manage all of my app subscriptions from the Subscriptions screen in the Settings app of my devices. If they open up to other payment methods, my subscriptions are no longer centralized, I have to give my credit card information to more parties of variable trustworthiness, I have to worry about subscription renewal policies for every individual app, I have to figure out different methods of cancelling which could be a more difficult process than hitting "cancel" and trusting Apple will stop the payments, etc.
- spogbiper 1y ago
  sound like an opportunity for a service that provides the conveniences you enjoy without the lock in and high taxes that Apple requires. imagine an app store that was curated more carefully, where every app was hand tested and with a guarantee of safety that Apple has not provided. a subscription manager with even better UI, lower fees, etc. a payment processor that offered better terms than Apple does. but we cannot have these until the lock in is removed
- ghusto 1y ago
  It's really not as scary as you think it is. Whenever I want a subscription I want inside an app, I actually take the effort to go to their website and buy it from them directly, because it's cheaper (not that they're allowed to tell me this in their app though). When I want to stop paying for the subscription, I cancel it and I'm done. At least in the EU, this is always an easy thing to do.
- wilsonnb3 1y ago
  I think those problems are largely also due to anti competitive and anti consumer behaviors. We need to craft legislation saying software vendors have to support some kind of standardized payment system with easy cancellation built in to it rather than relying on Apples good will.
  - Digit-Al 1y ago
    Here in the UK we have something called Direct Debit, that is backed by the Direct Debit guarantee. All regular payments are made by DD and we can cancel a regular payment at any time just by contacting our bank. I can go into my banking app, review a list of all DD payments, and cancel any of them with just the press of a button. You should campaign to have that system in America. I often find it strange that a country that is so advanced in many ways is so backwards when it comes to banking.
rTX5CMRXIfFG 1y ago
Things would actually change—developers would instead choose to distribute via the alternate means instead of the App Store. So, you see, it doesn’t matter whether Apple has the walled garden or the third-party devs have the walled garden. Either way, users will be forced to accept someone’s distribution policy. But the difference really lies in the trust on Apple and its security and privacy practices, which is a choice that will be robbed from people buying iPhones to use apps exactly for this purpose.
- fc417fc802 1y ago
  > developers would instead choose to distribute via the alternate means instead of the App Store Would they? I imagine they would distribute via all available, at different price points. At least that's what I would do. Why would I want to forgo access to customers who prefer every last detail to be handled via Apple's infrastructure? That said, if there were actually a dichotomy between "force developers to distribute via my preferred means" and "permit developers to choose whether or not to use my platform of choice" the former seems obviously immoral and the latter obviously the correct course of action. Why should you get to dictate how developers must do things? That's simply valuing your own preference over everyone else's (both developers and users) right to choose.
  - rTX5CMRXIfFG 1y ago
    Oh devs would absolutely avoid distributing through the App Store if they want to run any code that would fail App Store Review, such as the abuse of private low-level APIs to gather more user data than the app needs, which all businesses have a profit incentive to do. There are many other possible scenarios: devs forcing users to authenticate with unsecure methods, gather and unsecurely store credit card information, gather passwords, upload contacts, read SMSes, etc. The value that a third-party dev can derive from private user info is far greater than alternately offering a different version of the app that will pass App Store reviews.
    - ivan_gammel 1y ago
      Distribution via alternative stores does not mean there’s no review and moderation. Junk stores may have their fans, but competitive alternatives to App Store will inevitably introduce some controls to maintain reputation and remain compliant. Their advantage will be price, not presence of junk apps. That’s how free market with consumer protection laws works: regulation defines parameters of new equilibrium and eventually all start playing by the same rules to the benefit of the consumer.

_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.
fsflover 1y ago
> implementing the functionality to optionally open up your device to the world inherently makes it less secure Are you saying that Qubes OS is less secure than iOS?

hbn 1y ago

> Nothing would change for you. If my apps are changing, yes it is changing for me. Right now I can manage all of my app subscriptions from the Subscriptions screen in the Settings app of my devices. If they open up to other payment methods, my subscriptions are no longer centralized, I have to give my credit card information to more parties of variable trustworthiness, I have to worry about subscription renewal policies for every individual app, I have to figure out different methods of cancelling which could be a more difficult process than hitting "cancel" and trusting Apple will stop the payments, etc.

spogbiper 1y ago
sound like an opportunity for a service that provides the conveniences you enjoy without the lock in and high taxes that Apple requires. imagine an app store that was curated more carefully, where every app was hand tested and with a guarantee of safety that Apple has not provided. a subscription manager with even better UI, lower fees, etc. a payment processor that offered better terms than Apple does. but we cannot have these until the lock in is removed
ghusto 1y ago
It's really not as scary as you think it is. Whenever I want a subscription I want inside an app, I actually take the effort to go to their website and buy it from them directly, because it's cheaper (not that they're allowed to tell me this in their app though). When I want to stop paying for the subscription, I cancel it and I'm done. At least in the EU, this is always an easy thing to do.
wilsonnb3 1y ago
I think those problems are largely also due to anti competitive and anti consumer behaviors. We need to craft legislation saying software vendors have to support some kind of standardized payment system with easy cancellation built in to it rather than relying on Apples good will.
- Digit-Al 1y ago
  Here in the UK we have something called Direct Debit, that is backed by the Direct Debit guarantee. All regular payments are made by DD and we can cancel a regular payment at any time just by contacting our bank. I can go into my banking app, review a list of all DD payments, and cancel any of them with just the press of a button. You should campaign to have that system in America. I often find it strange that a country that is so advanced in many ways is so backwards when it comes to banking.

rTX5CMRXIfFG 1y ago

Things would actually change—developers would instead choose to distribute via the alternate means instead of the App Store. So, you see, it doesn’t matter whether Apple has the walled garden or the third-party devs have the walled garden. Either way, users will be forced to accept someone’s distribution policy. But the difference really lies in the trust on Apple and its security and privacy practices, which is a choice that will be robbed from people buying iPhones to use apps exactly for this purpose.

fc417fc802 1y ago
> developers would instead choose to distribute via the alternate means instead of the App Store Would they? I imagine they would distribute via all available, at different price points. At least that's what I would do. Why would I want to forgo access to customers who prefer every last detail to be handled via Apple's infrastructure? That said, if there were actually a dichotomy between "force developers to distribute via my preferred means" and "permit developers to choose whether or not to use my platform of choice" the former seems obviously immoral and the latter obviously the correct course of action. Why should you get to dictate how developers must do things? That's simply valuing your own preference over everyone else's (both developers and users) right to choose.
- rTX5CMRXIfFG 1y ago
  Oh devs would absolutely avoid distributing through the App Store if they want to run any code that would fail App Store Review, such as the abuse of private low-level APIs to gather more user data than the app needs, which all businesses have a profit incentive to do. There are many other possible scenarios: devs forcing users to authenticate with unsecure methods, gather and unsecurely store credit card information, gather passwords, upload contacts, read SMSes, etc. The value that a third-party dev can derive from private user info is far greater than alternately offering a different version of the app that will pass App Store reviews.
  - ivan_gammel 1y ago
    Distribution via alternative stores does not mean there’s no review and moderation. Junk stores may have their fans, but competitive alternatives to App Store will inevitably introduce some controls to maintain reputation and remain compliant. Their advantage will be price, not presence of junk apps. That’s how free market with consumer protection laws works: regulation defines parameters of new equilibrium and eventually all start playing by the same rules to the benefit of the consumer.