5 ms·

Apple? I'd never give my money to the organization that's responsible for bringing us to this place.

by gdulli 1y ago

itake 1y ago
How are they responsible?
- kleiba 1y ago
  I cannot speak for the grandparent, so here's my best guess what was meant: namely the introduction of a centally managed "app store" as the central/only way to install new software on your device, thereby taking control away from users?! Was the iPhone the first device to come with that concept?
  - blibble 1y ago
    carriers had similar stores for j2me apps on the original iphone the only "apps" you could have were websites, as apple hated the carrier approach
    - justsid 1y ago
      The “sweet solution” has long been debunked by the people who worked on the early iPhone OS software. The iPhone was always supposed to have apps, it just wasn’t ready yet. Heck, half the OS wasn’t ready either at launch or the MacWorld presentation.
  - CharlesW 1y ago
    > Was the iPhone the first device to come with that concept? Far from it. Before Apple, carriers and handset makers 100% controlled what you could install. "App stores" like Verizon's Get It Now, BREW, and Nokia’s operator portals existed, but they were fragmented, clunky, often exploitative, and comparatively laughable in scope and scale. Apple did what seemed impossible at the time, which was to persuade/cajole/force carriers and handset makers to give up their roles as gatekeepers. They created a single global marketplace with mostly-predictable rules and simple discovery, which finally allowed indie developers to reach users directly just as easily as global behemoths.
    - GeekyBear 1y ago
      Remember when Verizon was sued for forcing device makers to disable Bluetooth file transfers if they wanted their device to be allowed to connect to Verizon's network? Verizon wanted you to have to pay a fee every time you used their software to transfer an image from your phone to your computer, or vice versa.
  - guyomes 1y ago
    On video game consoles, the concept of taking control away from users seems common. There was some Linux kit for the Playstation 2 for example [1]. On more recent console, the process is not facilitated, to say the least [2]. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linux_for_PlayStation_2 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linux_for_PlayStation_2 [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homebrew_(video_games) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homebrew_(video_games)
- gdulli 1y ago
  Even less freedom of sideloading. They normalized it.
- MetaWhirledPeas 1y ago
  Not only did Apple popularize app stores, they made it impossible to get software on their devices any other way, from day one. Google was the relatively "open" option. But that was the old Google. This is the new Google, apparently. I'm actually pro-app store as long as it's helping apps to be malware-free. But I'm 100% against shutting out side-loading. Side-loading was never common let alone a common vector for malware, at least not that I've ever heard. But what it is, apparently (or we would not see these Google shenanigans), is a long-term threat to Google's own app store. Some idiot executive decided this.
  - rstat1 1y ago
    >>I'm actually pro-app store as long as it's helping apps to be malware-free Except that it isn't. Epic v Apple proved this on the Apple side. The fact that (according to Google) only 50% of Android malware comes from sideloading should also make you question where the other 50% is coming from. (Hint: a lot of it is from the Play Store)
    - Aloisius 1y ago
      50%? Source? The only similar claim I can find is they said is you're 50x more likely to encounter malware from internet-sideloaded sources than from the Play Store, but that's rather different.
      - rstat1 1y ago
        Ok I absolutely misread that as 50%...either way, a not-insignificant portion of Android malware still comes from the Play Store, which was the point I was trying to make.
nextos 1y ago
And Microsoft. Microsoft basically killed Nokia from the inside. Symbian was fairly open in terms of installing applications from wherever you wanted. And Maemo/MeeGo were basically normal Linux distributions. Right now, SailfishOS is a worthy successor. It runs on a fairly decent number of devices and is quite ready for daily usage. Following the Nokia tradition, offline maps are outstanding. There's also a proprietary Android emulation layer that works really well for most applications, in case that is needed. SailfishOS and Jolla could challenge the duopoly if a critical mass of developers migrated to the system. Right now, there's a fairly small technical userbase that has nonetheless produced lots of great indie applications. I can't believe I had Linux in my pocket with the N770 in late 2005 and, right now, mainstream options are so locked down.
- bitwize 1y ago
  Sailfish is not, and never will be, available in the USA. The reason why is because US carriers do device whitelisting: if the handset is not approved by the carrier, it cannot connect. And they're not going to approve anything but iOS and Android.
  - nextos 1y ago
    Plenty of SFOS users run the OS on Sony devices, where it has official support, I don't see a major problem. T-Mobile seems to have no problem with them. There are of course caveats, but with a larger userbase things would get ironed out. Still, in the Sailfish forum there are American users that employ their devices as daily drivers.
  - mindslight 1y ago
    Keep on hacking at basebands. In the US, changing a device's IMEI is only illegal when done with intent to obtain unauthorized service. Using a phone of your choice on your side of the radio wave demarc falls squarely under Carterphone. (Never mind clunkier but more straightforward solutions like a libre device/OS using wifi from a mifi)
    - bitwize 1y ago
GeekyBear 1y ago
> Apple? I'd never give my money to the organization that's responsible for bringing us to this place. Apple didn't invent walled gardens, and walled gardens are not illegal unless you do what the EU did and change the law. What is going to bite Google on the ass here is selling users an "open" platform and then using anticompetitive tactics to yank those supposed freedoms away. Look at Microsoft's Xbox platform. It was created, advertised and sold to the public as a walled garden with no legal repercussions at all, because walled gardens are not illegal. On the other hand, Microsoft created Windows as an open platform and sold it to the public as such. When Microsoft tried to use anticompetitive tactics to maintain control of the platform they sold as "open", they were found guilty of antitrust in jurisdictions around the world. Google made the choice to sell Android as open. "Sideloading" apps was the only way to install apps at all for the first couple of years. The decision to sell Android as "open" only to yank those freedoms away will have legal consequences again here.
- bonoboTP 1y ago
  Nobody in this chain claimed that's illegal (or not). It can be hostile, dystopian etc without ever being illegal.
  - GeekyBear 1y ago
    If you don't want to buy into a walled garden, you have the choice not to do so. The problem here is that the people who announced the "open" platform option were lying to everyone in order to gain market share.
    - bonoboTP 1y ago
      > If you don't want to buy into a walled garden, you have the choice not to do so. You can still lament the wider societal scale impacts of increasing controls. If both Google and Apple become walled gardens, then what exactly is left? And people need smartphones to get through daily life, interact with banks and government offices. And I bet Windows is going to head down the same path. ID-verified-by-default, only government and corporate-approved apps installable, AI surveillance running in the background analyzing your every click (for your safety) etc. You see, we need that to catch the bad guys.

Apple? I'd never give my money to the organization that's responsible for bringing us to this place.

by gdulli 1y ago

Apple? I'd never give my money to the organization that's responsible for bringing us to this place.

itake 1y ago

How are they responsible?

kleiba 1y ago
I cannot speak for the grandparent, so here's my best guess what was meant: namely the introduction of a centally managed "app store" as the central/only way to install new software on your device, thereby taking control away from users?! Was the iPhone the first device to come with that concept?
- blibble 1y ago
  carriers had similar stores for j2me apps on the original iphone the only "apps" you could have were websites, as apple hated the carrier approach
  - justsid 1y ago
    The “sweet solution” has long been debunked by the people who worked on the early iPhone OS software. The iPhone was always supposed to have apps, it just wasn’t ready yet. Heck, half the OS wasn’t ready either at launch or the MacWorld presentation.
- CharlesW 1y ago
  > Was the iPhone the first device to come with that concept? Far from it. Before Apple, carriers and handset makers 100% controlled what you could install. "App stores" like Verizon's Get It Now, BREW, and Nokia’s operator portals existed, but they were fragmented, clunky, often exploitative, and comparatively laughable in scope and scale. Apple did what seemed impossible at the time, which was to persuade/cajole/force carriers and handset makers to give up their roles as gatekeepers. They created a single global marketplace with mostly-predictable rules and simple discovery, which finally allowed indie developers to reach users directly just as easily as global behemoths.
  - GeekyBear 1y ago
    Remember when Verizon was sued for forcing device makers to disable Bluetooth file transfers if they wanted their device to be allowed to connect to Verizon's network? Verizon wanted you to have to pay a fee every time you used their software to transfer an image from your phone to your computer, or vice versa.
- guyomes 1y ago
  On video game consoles, the concept of taking control away from users seems common. There was some Linux kit for the Playstation 2 for example [1]. On more recent console, the process is not facilitated, to say the least [2]. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linux_for_PlayStation_2 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linux_for_PlayStation_2 [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homebrew_(video_games) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homebrew_(video_games)
gdulli 1y ago
Even less freedom of sideloading. They normalized it.
MetaWhirledPeas 1y ago
Not only did Apple popularize app stores, they made it impossible to get software on their devices any other way, from day one. Google was the relatively "open" option. But that was the old Google. This is the new Google, apparently. I'm actually pro-app store as long as it's helping apps to be malware-free. But I'm 100% against shutting out side-loading. Side-loading was never common let alone a common vector for malware, at least not that I've ever heard. But what it is, apparently (or we would not see these Google shenanigans), is a long-term threat to Google's own app store. Some idiot executive decided this.
- rstat1 1y ago
  >>I'm actually pro-app store as long as it's helping apps to be malware-free Except that it isn't. Epic v Apple proved this on the Apple side. The fact that (according to Google) only 50% of Android malware comes from sideloading should also make you question where the other 50% is coming from. (Hint: a lot of it is from the Play Store)
  - Aloisius 1y ago
    50%? Source? The only similar claim I can find is they said is you're 50x more likely to encounter malware from internet-sideloaded sources than from the Play Store, but that's rather different.
    - rstat1 1y ago
      Ok I absolutely misread that as 50%...either way, a not-insignificant portion of Android malware still comes from the Play Store, which was the point I was trying to make.

nextos 1y ago

And Microsoft. Microsoft basically killed Nokia from the inside. Symbian was fairly open in terms of installing applications from wherever you wanted. And Maemo/MeeGo were basically normal Linux distributions. Right now, SailfishOS is a worthy successor. It runs on a fairly decent number of devices and is quite ready for daily usage. Following the Nokia tradition, offline maps are outstanding. There's also a proprietary Android emulation layer that works really well for most applications, in case that is needed. SailfishOS and Jolla could challenge the duopoly if a critical mass of developers migrated to the system. Right now, there's a fairly small technical userbase that has nonetheless produced lots of great indie applications. I can't believe I had Linux in my pocket with the N770 in late 2005 and, right now, mainstream options are so locked down.

bitwize 1y ago
Sailfish is not, and never will be, available in the USA. The reason why is because US carriers do device whitelisting: if the handset is not approved by the carrier, it cannot connect. And they're not going to approve anything but iOS and Android.
- nextos 1y ago
  Plenty of SFOS users run the OS on Sony devices, where it has official support, I don't see a major problem. T-Mobile seems to have no problem with them. There are of course caveats, but with a larger userbase things would get ironed out. Still, in the Sailfish forum there are American users that employ their devices as daily drivers.
- mindslight 1y ago
  Keep on hacking at basebands. In the US, changing a device's IMEI is only illegal when done with intent to obtain unauthorized service. Using a phone of your choice on your side of the radio wave demarc falls squarely under Carterphone. (Never mind clunkier but more straightforward solutions like a libre device/OS using wifi from a mifi)
  - bitwize 1y ago

GeekyBear 1y ago

> Apple? I'd never give my money to the organization that's responsible for bringing us to this place. Apple didn't invent walled gardens, and walled gardens are not illegal unless you do what the EU did and change the law. What is going to bite Google on the ass here is selling users an "open" platform and then using anticompetitive tactics to yank those supposed freedoms away. Look at Microsoft's Xbox platform. It was created, advertised and sold to the public as a walled garden with no legal repercussions at all, because walled gardens are not illegal. On the other hand, Microsoft created Windows as an open platform and sold it to the public as such. When Microsoft tried to use anticompetitive tactics to maintain control of the platform they sold as "open", they were found guilty of antitrust in jurisdictions around the world. Google made the choice to sell Android as open. "Sideloading" apps was the only way to install apps at all for the first couple of years. The decision to sell Android as "open" only to yank those freedoms away will have legal consequences again here.

bonoboTP 1y ago
Nobody in this chain claimed that's illegal (or not). It can be hostile, dystopian etc without ever being illegal.
- GeekyBear 1y ago
  If you don't want to buy into a walled garden, you have the choice not to do so. The problem here is that the people who announced the "open" platform option were lying to everyone in order to gain market share.
  - bonoboTP 1y ago
    > If you don't want to buy into a walled garden, you have the choice not to do so. You can still lament the wider societal scale impacts of increasing controls. If both Google and Apple become walled gardens, then what exactly is left? And people need smartphones to get through daily life, interact with banks and government offices. And I bet Windows is going to head down the same path. ID-verified-by-default, only government and corporate-approved apps installable, AI surveillance running in the background analyzing your every click (for your safety) etc. You see, we need that to catch the bad guys.