4 ms·

> But people should also be able to get apps from whatever store they want. This the answer. The app store monopoly doesn't really matter, the real tyranny is

> But people should also be able to get apps from whatever store they want. This the answer. The app store monopoly doesn't really matter, the real tyranny is needing Apple's cryptographic blessing to run software on our own computers. This should be literally illegal. Restore our computer freedom and their app store rent seeking becomes irrelevant.

bloomca 1y ago
It's not just about that. I am sure if the court would force them to allow sideloading, they'll make sure to never promote your app if you decide to offer both options to the users.
- para_parolu 1y ago
  And that’s fair. Apple doesn’t have to provide services to businesses
  - earthnail 1y ago
    Not until alternative stores become competitive. Realistically they have such a monopoly thar you end up in a chiclen and egg situation. Their monopoly is so large that noone wants to distribute via small alt stores, meaning alt stores never get large.
    - anilgulecha 1y ago
      A chicken and egg problem is highly unlikely. Here's a few probable situations: 1) A fdroid equivalent pops up, which them becomes a collection of fantastic open source apps, and soon develops a strong user base. 2) Google launches play store for iPhone, which will on day 1 get millions of users. 3) Meta launches metaStore, which so the only way to get Facebook, threads, Instagram and WhatsApp. This becomes the fastest growing store in a matter of a week. One may personally not like this world - but imo it's a better world than the one we have - personally for (1) to exist.
      - JumpCrisscross 1y ago
        > Meta launches metaStore, which so the only way to get Facebook, threads, Instagram and WhatsApp Would note the trade off: this store will be a bastion of tracking, possibly with Meta requiring its bugs be installed for inclusion.
        anilgulecha 1y ago
        Highly probable. This will rightly push Apple in the right direction - to bring the right OS controls at the operating system level / store API level, and not leave things up to apps. This is a better world, despite short term issues with metaStore.
        JumpCrisscross 1y ago
        > bring the right OS controls at the operating system level / store API level, and not leave things up to apps This will almost certainly be litigated. We also haven’t broached national laws mandating a government-controlled App Store. (Would expect this to emerge in right-wing Europe or India first.)
      - close04 1y ago
        On #3, Meta could have done it for Android and I don't think they did. Actually if Android is a god estimation of how it looks like with 3rd party stores, it won't be super disruptive. Unless the iOS market is so lucrative it will garner far more interest.
        spect88 1y ago
        > Actually if Android is a god estimation of how it looks like with 3rd party stores, it won't be super disruptive. Google Play has fewer restrictions though. Apple doesn't even allow alternative browser engines. Until last year they didn't allow any emulators.
      - qwytw 1y ago
        > 3) Meta launches metaStore, which so the only way to get Facebook, threads, Instagram and WhatsApp. This becomes the fastest growing store in a matter of a week. Why? They don't do this on Android. At then end of the day the number of active users would fall if they do this. That's unavoidable. So what incentives do they have to not distribute on the App Store? It's not like (unlike in Epic's case) Apple is requiring Facebook to hand over 30% of its revenue. fdroid is of course great. Extremely niche and not that significant, though. > Google launches play store for iPhone, which will on day 1 get millions of users. Amazon tried that on Android. Of course I would expect Google to do much better but that doesn't mean a lot.
  - Nevermark 1y ago
    Punishing developers for not exclusively using their App Store would be clearly uncompetitive. If they have to allow other stores, then they are not going to be allowed to punish developers for using them. (Assuming the lowest bar possible in anti-competitive resolution follow through.)
  - crossroadsguy 1y ago
    As long as they clearly give the option, at the time of first setup - or an upgrade, to select which app store becomes default; and make it very easy to change default app store later, just like default browser, default search engine et cetera. But they must not be allowed to disallow for the reason that "you are on another app store, we don't like you, go away!". Yup, it's then fair and they can keep the banner in their App Store that screams at font size 38 "This Journal App Is Da Best", "No Other Note App Has Been Made Greater Than This One".
echelon 1y ago
> > But people should also be able to get apps from whatever store they want. The web. Without scare walls or hidden "enable downloads" menu settings. And apps should no longer have to use first party payment rails, first party authentication/sign in rails, or be forced to jump through review or upgrade hoops.
- c0balt 1y ago
  > The web. Without scare walls or hidden "enable downloads" menu settings. I'm not too sure about that, for non-technical users the warnings before installing an APK on Android are very likely a good thing. There's a lot of malware out there and, similar to running a downloaded Exe on Windows, you should at least explicitly confirm it's execution.
  - nchmy 1y ago
    The warnings arent needed on the web, because it's vastly more secure, flexible, etc.. Steve Jobs even coined the PWA concept before going the fiefdom route
- labcomputer 1y ago
  I don’t know whether to feel happy or sad for you. Happy because you have nobody in your life in a vulnerable position to be taken advantage of the inevitable malware that will be installed on their device as a result of your wish. Or sad because those people are most likely to be grandparents or elderly aunts and uncles. Perhaps you never even got to know them.
  - tekkk 1y ago
    What a stupid argument. Maybe grandpas and grandmas should get a different phone then, like a Doro, and stop bringing the rest of us down. And it doesn't even hold water as my mother has been scammed by legitimate App Store apps that have charged extra-fees just because they could.
    - 1y ago
Cthulhu_ 1y ago
It's a tradeoff. You may have the knowledge and risk awareness to install anything, circumvent protections like you still can on MacOS, but the vast majority does not and should not have that power; this led to huge botnets during the Windows XP era when many internet connections were first set up. They overcompensated with Vista, asking permissions for everything so people developed a kneejerk "just hit accept". The iPhone came out not long after, with a safety by default - which invariably meant restricting what a user can and cannot do and install on their system. I think it's been a net positive overall. The percentage of people that want to do and install more with it is small.
- ndriscoll 1y ago
  The problem with Windows XP was that at the time you plugged it into your modem directly (or the computer contained the modem if it was dialup) with no firewall, and it would get exploited in seconds without any user interaction through some default Microsoft background service. Wifi routers were probably a much larger impact than any operating system changes. Especially anything user facing. It's also why clickbait silliness aside, running windows XP isn't actually that likely to run into issues today.
- zb3 1y ago
  > It's a tradeoff. You may have the knowledge and risk awareness [...] but the vast majority does not and should not have that power But that power is not more dangerous than having guns, right? So.. while I can apply for a gun license, I can't apply for an unrestricted computing license, so something is wrong here, don't you think? Unless you believe guns are less dangerous.
  - matheusmoreira 1y ago
    > But that power is not more dangerous than having guns, right? It actually is. Free computers are intolerably subversive. They can literally wipe out entire sectors of the economy just by copying artificially scarce things. They can defeat police, judges, militaries, governments by democratizing access to strong cryprography. They want to control our computers at all costs. We must resist. Computers are too important for us to allow them to be controlled and limited.

bloomca 1y ago

It's not just about that. I am sure if the court would force them to allow sideloading, they'll make sure to never promote your app if you decide to offer both options to the users.

para_parolu 1y ago
And that’s fair. Apple doesn’t have to provide services to businesses
- earthnail 1y ago
  Not until alternative stores become competitive. Realistically they have such a monopoly thar you end up in a chiclen and egg situation. Their monopoly is so large that noone wants to distribute via small alt stores, meaning alt stores never get large.
  - anilgulecha 1y ago
    A chicken and egg problem is highly unlikely. Here's a few probable situations: 1) A fdroid equivalent pops up, which them becomes a collection of fantastic open source apps, and soon develops a strong user base. 2) Google launches play store for iPhone, which will on day 1 get millions of users. 3) Meta launches metaStore, which so the only way to get Facebook, threads, Instagram and WhatsApp. This becomes the fastest growing store in a matter of a week. One may personally not like this world - but imo it's a better world than the one we have - personally for (1) to exist.
    - JumpCrisscross 1y ago
      > Meta launches metaStore, which so the only way to get Facebook, threads, Instagram and WhatsApp Would note the trade off: this store will be a bastion of tracking, possibly with Meta requiring its bugs be installed for inclusion.
      - anilgulecha 1y ago
        Highly probable. This will rightly push Apple in the right direction - to bring the right OS controls at the operating system level / store API level, and not leave things up to apps. This is a better world, despite short term issues with metaStore.
        JumpCrisscross 1y ago
        > bring the right OS controls at the operating system level / store API level, and not leave things up to apps This will almost certainly be litigated. We also haven’t broached national laws mandating a government-controlled App Store. (Would expect this to emerge in right-wing Europe or India first.)
    - close04 1y ago
      On #3, Meta could have done it for Android and I don't think they did. Actually if Android is a god estimation of how it looks like with 3rd party stores, it won't be super disruptive. Unless the iOS market is so lucrative it will garner far more interest.
      - spect88 1y ago
        > Actually if Android is a god estimation of how it looks like with 3rd party stores, it won't be super disruptive. Google Play has fewer restrictions though. Apple doesn't even allow alternative browser engines. Until last year they didn't allow any emulators.
    - qwytw 1y ago
      > 3) Meta launches metaStore, which so the only way to get Facebook, threads, Instagram and WhatsApp. This becomes the fastest growing store in a matter of a week. Why? They don't do this on Android. At then end of the day the number of active users would fall if they do this. That's unavoidable. So what incentives do they have to not distribute on the App Store? It's not like (unlike in Epic's case) Apple is requiring Facebook to hand over 30% of its revenue. fdroid is of course great. Extremely niche and not that significant, though. > Google launches play store for iPhone, which will on day 1 get millions of users. Amazon tried that on Android. Of course I would expect Google to do much better but that doesn't mean a lot.
- Nevermark 1y ago
  Punishing developers for not exclusively using their App Store would be clearly uncompetitive. If they have to allow other stores, then they are not going to be allowed to punish developers for using them. (Assuming the lowest bar possible in anti-competitive resolution follow through.)
- crossroadsguy 1y ago
  As long as they clearly give the option, at the time of first setup - or an upgrade, to select which app store becomes default; and make it very easy to change default app store later, just like default browser, default search engine et cetera. But they must not be allowed to disallow for the reason that "you are on another app store, we don't like you, go away!". Yup, it's then fair and they can keep the banner in their App Store that screams at font size 38 "This Journal App Is Da Best", "No Other Note App Has Been Made Greater Than This One".

echelon 1y ago

> > But people should also be able to get apps from whatever store they want. The web. Without scare walls or hidden "enable downloads" menu settings. And apps should no longer have to use first party payment rails, first party authentication/sign in rails, or be forced to jump through review or upgrade hoops.

c0balt 1y ago
> The web. Without scare walls or hidden "enable downloads" menu settings. I'm not too sure about that, for non-technical users the warnings before installing an APK on Android are very likely a good thing. There's a lot of malware out there and, similar to running a downloaded Exe on Windows, you should at least explicitly confirm it's execution.
- nchmy 1y ago
  The warnings arent needed on the web, because it's vastly more secure, flexible, etc.. Steve Jobs even coined the PWA concept before going the fiefdom route
labcomputer 1y ago
I don’t know whether to feel happy or sad for you. Happy because you have nobody in your life in a vulnerable position to be taken advantage of the inevitable malware that will be installed on their device as a result of your wish. Or sad because those people are most likely to be grandparents or elderly aunts and uncles. Perhaps you never even got to know them.
- tekkk 1y ago
  What a stupid argument. Maybe grandpas and grandmas should get a different phone then, like a Doro, and stop bringing the rest of us down. And it doesn't even hold water as my mother has been scammed by legitimate App Store apps that have charged extra-fees just because they could.
  - 1y ago

Cthulhu_ 1y ago

It's a tradeoff. You may have the knowledge and risk awareness to install anything, circumvent protections like you still can on MacOS, but the vast majority does not and should not have that power; this led to huge botnets during the Windows XP era when many internet connections were first set up. They overcompensated with Vista, asking permissions for everything so people developed a kneejerk "just hit accept". The iPhone came out not long after, with a safety by default - which invariably meant restricting what a user can and cannot do and install on their system. I think it's been a net positive overall. The percentage of people that want to do and install more with it is small.

ndriscoll 1y ago
The problem with Windows XP was that at the time you plugged it into your modem directly (or the computer contained the modem if it was dialup) with no firewall, and it would get exploited in seconds without any user interaction through some default Microsoft background service. Wifi routers were probably a much larger impact than any operating system changes. Especially anything user facing. It's also why clickbait silliness aside, running windows XP isn't actually that likely to run into issues today.
zb3 1y ago
> It's a tradeoff. You may have the knowledge and risk awareness [...] but the vast majority does not and should not have that power But that power is not more dangerous than having guns, right? So.. while I can apply for a gun license, I can't apply for an unrestricted computing license, so something is wrong here, don't you think? Unless you believe guns are less dangerous.
- matheusmoreira 1y ago
  > But that power is not more dangerous than having guns, right? It actually is. Free computers are intolerably subversive. They can literally wipe out entire sectors of the economy just by copying artificially scarce things. They can defeat police, judges, militaries, governments by democratizing access to strong cryprography. They want to control our computers at all costs. We must resist. Computers are too important for us to allow them to be controlled and limited.