4 ms·

Its interesting that you're giving the benefit of the doubt to Apple, when all signs from the past point to Apple kicking the developer out and protecting their

Its interesting that you're giving the benefit of the doubt to Apple, when all signs from the past point to Apple kicking the developer out and protecting their app store control. You're technically right that we havent seen Apple do the thing _in this instance_ but why do you still give the company the benefit of the doubt.

GeekyBear 1y ago
The issue is app distribution outside of the first party app stores. One one hand we have an official policy announcement from Google, and on the other hand we have speculation about why one developer is having issues distributing one app. Speculation is not on the same level as an official policy.
- bitpush 1y ago
  Historically speaking, has Apple sided with developers or themselves in such cases?
  - GeekyBear 1y ago
    Historically speaking, Apple didn't allow side loading at all. The EU changed the laws within their jurisdiction to require third party app store availability. Historically speaking, Google made claims that Android would allow you to run anything you like (they didn't even have their own app store at first), and also that Android was open source. They have incrementally been rolling back those stances ever since.
    - wkat4242 1y ago
      Yes and next year they're going to sign APKs even outside the app store so it's going to be almost the same situation as for Apple in the EU
    - aspenmayer 1y ago
      At the time saurik wrote Cydia, Apple's App Store didn't exist, either.
      - GeekyBear 1y ago
        Before the App Store, Apple didn't intend for there to be third party native apps at all. Just web apps.
        aspenmayer 1y ago
        I guess users claim more rights than what Apple intended for them to have. Good for them. Sucks to be Apple, having folks establish their ownership of their property and the operation thereof. Look, kids! It’s a poor, little trillion dollar mega corporation. Everybody wave!
        GeekyBear 1y ago
        Promising users that your platform is "open" when you create it and market it to consumers -- only to break those promises later -- is the reason why Google keeps being found guilty of antitrust violations in jurisdictions around the world. Meanwhile, walled gardens remain perfectly legal, unless you explicitly change the law. Look at Microsoft, which created and marketed Xbox as a walled garden with no legal repercussions in the decades since. However, Microsoft created Windows as an open platform, and then used anticompetitive tactics to retain control (just as Google did) and was found just as guilty as Google in the courts. When Apple created iOS it was a closed platform. When they added the ability to create third party native apps they were clear that the platform would be a walled garden.
        aspenmayer 1y ago
        > When Apple created iOS it was a closed platform. When they added the ability to create third party native apps they were clear that the platform would be a walled garden. It clearly was not a closed platform in the way that Apple believed. It never should have been closed. I own my devices, so I get to decide what they run. It’s my electricity driving the chips, so I decide which bits get flipped. Simple as. I do hear you, I just don’t know if I have the same perception of the facts on the ground. Google and Apple should be compelled to support users’ decisions about whether to defer to the corporate overlords, or not.

GeekyBear 1y ago

The issue is app distribution outside of the first party app stores. One one hand we have an official policy announcement from Google, and on the other hand we have speculation about why one developer is having issues distributing one app. Speculation is not on the same level as an official policy.

bitpush 1y ago
Historically speaking, has Apple sided with developers or themselves in such cases?
- GeekyBear 1y ago
  Historically speaking, Apple didn't allow side loading at all. The EU changed the laws within their jurisdiction to require third party app store availability. Historically speaking, Google made claims that Android would allow you to run anything you like (they didn't even have their own app store at first), and also that Android was open source. They have incrementally been rolling back those stances ever since.
  - wkat4242 1y ago
    Yes and next year they're going to sign APKs even outside the app store so it's going to be almost the same situation as for Apple in the EU
  - aspenmayer 1y ago
    At the time saurik wrote Cydia, Apple's App Store didn't exist, either.
    - GeekyBear 1y ago
      Before the App Store, Apple didn't intend for there to be third party native apps at all. Just web apps.
      - aspenmayer 1y ago
        I guess users claim more rights than what Apple intended for them to have. Good for them. Sucks to be Apple, having folks establish their ownership of their property and the operation thereof. Look, kids! It’s a poor, little trillion dollar mega corporation. Everybody wave!
        GeekyBear 1y ago
        Promising users that your platform is "open" when you create it and market it to consumers -- only to break those promises later -- is the reason why Google keeps being found guilty of antitrust violations in jurisdictions around the world. Meanwhile, walled gardens remain perfectly legal, unless you explicitly change the law. Look at Microsoft, which created and marketed Xbox as a walled garden with no legal repercussions in the decades since. However, Microsoft created Windows as an open platform, and then used anticompetitive tactics to retain control (just as Google did) and was found just as guilty as Google in the courts. When Apple created iOS it was a closed platform. When they added the ability to create third party native apps they were clear that the platform would be a walled garden.
        aspenmayer 1y ago
        > When Apple created iOS it was a closed platform. When they added the ability to create third party native apps they were clear that the platform would be a walled garden. It clearly was not a closed platform in the way that Apple believed. It never should have been closed. I own my devices, so I get to decide what they run. It’s my electricity driving the chips, so I decide which bits get flipped. Simple as. I do hear you, I just don’t know if I have the same perception of the facts on the ground. Google and Apple should be compelled to support users’ decisions about whether to defer to the corporate overlords, or not.