4 ms·

> In my experience, once the issue is framed as 'Google will decide what you can do with your phone' every single person is immediately outraged. Apple already

• nullc 6mo ago
  Apple doesn't own re-captcha. Apple's walled garden is still a tragedy but its a tragedy of willing participants.
• sevenzero 6mo ago
  Because Apple always did this, everybody knew this and people buy Apple exactly because of this. Google now pulls the rug on Android which is a whole different story because it used to be open. The whole idea of Android was to be open.
  • comandillos 6mo ago
    The biggest mistake is that people trusted a company that, in reality, isn't that different from Apple. Just because everyone claimed Android as the true open source alternative to iOS, when only AOSP was that.
    • sevenzero 6mo ago
      Yea agree. I reeeeally dont get why Google or Apple have good reputation at all.
      • comandillos 6mo ago
        They built products people like, and specially Apple has good reputation for building reliable, long-lasting and easy to use stuff for most people, leading to a heavy user adoption. But heavy user adoption without the proper regulation and company ethics leads to, well, monopolistic practices.
      • pbhjpbhj 6mo ago
        Google (before the sell-off) promoted a morality in 'don't be evil' that was a stark contrast to other tech firms. The adverts they carried were minimal. Their "free" stuff was top of the line, better than people were getting from paid services. Apple (under Jobs) sold themselves as counter-culture, they used popstars (unironically), and design, to sell the idea that if you were your own person, or followed fashion, then you bought Apple. I think the goodwill from those days still provides the foundations of their cultural position now. Although they chip away at those foundations. OpenAI looked like it could follow Google's early model, until it didn't.
        • ThrowawayR2 6mo ago
          The writing was on the wall for "don't be evil" when Google started the process of acquiring the much reviled DoubleClick back in 2007, nearly 20 years ago at this point. That's longer than most people reading this have been in the tech industry; a generation has never seen Google be anything other than increasingly extractive and monopolistic.
      • austinthetaco 6mo ago
        i mean Apple kind of used that position for building a good reputation. their whole thing is/was how secure their devices were and how they had human verification on all apps that went through the app store with a clear intents file (a file the describes exactly WHY an app needs permission for bluetooth/etc), and a secure enclave that prevented even the FBI from getting in (while apple refused to give them a backdoor). Hackers and tinkerers will find a lot of these measures to be an annoyance and authoritative control, but a lot of people just want their phone to a product, not the user.
  • curt15 6mo ago
    > Because Apple always did this, everybody knew this and people buy Apple exactly because of this. Is that really so? Does the average iPhone user actually factor the app store tax into their decision to purchase the device? Or do they just assume that is just how all software works because they have no exposure to software ecosystems outside the iPhone app store
    • sevenzero 6mo ago
      They factor in a more "clean" appstore yes. Not the tax itself but they usually appreciate apple having more polished apps in general (given that the Google Playstore is full of trash).
      • Intermernet 6mo ago
        Google play store is only full of trash if you go hunting for trash. I'd like to see the actual stats of people affected by play store malware vs malware available on the play store. I'm not saying it's not a problem, but I am saying it's not a problem that has caused any problems with any Android user I've ever met.
        • sevenzero 6mo ago
          I am not talking about the malware, I am talking about the apps that are bloated with advertisements or try really hard to push a subscription upon you. Lots of "free" apps try to push you into a subscription once installed.
          • smallmancontrov 6mo ago
            By that measure, the Apple app store is full of trash too.
        • intended 6mo ago
          > but I am saying it's not a problem that has caused any problems with any Android user I've ever met. You are an HN user of some age. You might even be the family IT person. You may well be changing the experience of people in your orbit. In contrast, my grandfather’s android phone had somehow 3 different SMS apps, all of which must have tried to remove the default app. I doubt you think some chap living in rural India, has good data hygiene and habits.
  • jhanschoo 6mo ago
    > Google now pulls the rug on Android which is a whole different story because it used to be open. The whole idea of Android was to be open. This is the narrative for us in developed nations, but the majority of users today are people who were in developing countries and got a mid-tier smartphone to chat with friends and do banking with the same values as Apple users.
  • anxoo 6mo ago
    this is that xkcd "regular people can only name a few common feldspars" meme. over 90% of consumers have no knowledge at all of tech corps' philosophy on user freedom, they just buy cheap phones that have good cameras and run instagram and tiktok well.
    • rambambram 6mo ago
      Thanks for the reminder, I needed that. I didn't know this xkcd, but I've bookmarked it.
  • socalgal2 6mo ago
    People do not buy Apple because of this. They buy Apple for other reasons and this comes along with it. Apple could allow side-loaded apps and not a single person would switch
• peterm4 6mo ago
  > It doesn't take much to convince them that Google et al don't have their best interests in mind. They already know it and have experienced it. I think with Apple in particular, this is the issue. Apple have largely demonstrated that they _do_ often have the users best interests in mind (or at least at some point have had) on the basis that the users are Apple’s primary customers. Yes, Apple lock down iOS functionality but this has often been to deliver innovative features. Users don’t mind that they’re in a walled garden because, they like the walled garden. This is where Google is a different case. Google’s interests are aligned with mass data collection rather than products people love. Most Google users have experienced how this impacts them negatively at some point, usually with the degradation of their products, and constant advert spam. Google is an example of a company that the mass majority assumes to be in the wrong. Apple often isn’t.
  • quietbritishjim 6mo ago
    Most people just do not think about this as much as we do. We understand that, as the saying goes, if you're not paying for something then you are the product. But less technical people don't consider that, and don't have hoards of technical friends to convince them otherwise. They just think: they using the product, so they're the user, right? We know that's true but it's not the same thing as customer. Most people don't have that distinction in their head. It's even partially true that Google does want to do things that attracts and retains users, because that's a prerequisite for selling them to advertisers. In my experience, that's an upper bound on the amount of thought most non-technical people would give it.
    • pbhjpbhj 6mo ago
      >if you're not paying for something then you are the product. It seems over the last decade that if you _are_ paying, you are still the product, you're just making more money for the people selling you.
• khriss 6mo ago
  Yes, but most people don't realize it, simply because they have been conditioned from the beginning that the only way to run anything on an iOS device is via the app store. With Apple customers, a better argument to make is to say that Apple applies a 30% 'tax' on all activity on their phones. That they are being forced to pay more compared to non Apple users in spite of having bought their device fair and square.
  • lotsofpulp 6mo ago
    I have been using Apple devices for almost 20 years, and I have never been forced to pay a 30% tax on all activity on my phone. I can avoid it by buying directly from the seller's website, and also I just avoid buying software subscriptions in general, but especially from the App Store. 99% of the payment activity I do on my phone (buying retail goods, travel arrangements, paying invoices) has no additional cost.
    • khriss 6mo ago
      No? Apple charges a fee on every app sale. Where do you think the app makers pay that walled garden tax?
      • lotsofpulp 6mo ago
        Buying apps is hardly "all activity on a phone". It's completely inconsequential to my spend since summer of 2008, when I began using Apple products. Maybe a couple hundred dollars in total app store purchases? It would make no sense for me to base a decision about devices I use day and night over that small amount of money (30% of a couple hundred dollars).
        • khriss 6mo ago
          > It would make no sense for me to base a decision about devices I use day and night over that small amount of money (30% of a couple hundred dollars). Fair enough. It might not be consequential for you, the fact remains Apple took 30% of every dollar you spent on the app store. This, after you paid a premium for Apple hardware. I'm happy the walled garden with a toll is worth it for you. All I'm saying is, others might not agree with that if they knew. Just look at the push back again tariffs as an example.
• roer 6mo ago
  Frame it as "America will decide what you can do with your phone" and people in Europe will listen.
  • userbinator 6mo ago
    Frame it as "the government will decide what you can do with your phone" and people in America will listen.
    • parineum 6mo ago
      Frame it as "won't somebody think of the children" and everyone will listen.
      • cybercatgurrl 5mo ago
        that is how you wind up with a surveillance state. should probably avoid using that argument
• techteach00 6mo ago
  I agree with this. The general population is hopeless, they will hand literally anything away for the least amount of friction. They are also profoundly ignorant. The solution should be to provide the tools necessary to preserve as much agency using technology to people who want to. You should also keep in mind the middle tier technical people who need a bit of hand holding. But do not waste your time on the general public because they don't share or comprehend your goals.
  • erikerikson 6mo ago
    No, they calculate in the fact of that lack of control into their purchase decision. They mostly didn't want that control in the first place. They just want to _______, for many things you can fill in the blank, including things like look good, appear classy, get high, get laid...
    • techteach00 6mo ago
      I respectfully disagree with "they calculate in the fact of that lack of control into their purchase decision". The average person is not calculating anything but price, is it what everyone else is using, is it new etc. Very low level calculations. They aren't asking "can I install applications from outside the app store?". Etc.
      • erikerikson 6mo ago
        Hrrm. It seems your original comment has been heavily edited. > They aren't asking "can I install applications from outside the app store?" I agree. They don't want to. They already can't begin to evaluate app trustworthiness and don't want to have to. And they shouldn't have to. Yet they live in a world where they do. So they lean on reputation, app store filtering, the legal system, and hope.
        • bigyabai 6mo ago
          > I agree. They don't want to. That's not what the parent was saying. Most people don't have any opinion whatsoever on sideloading. You can go confirm this for yourself by asking a Mac or PC owner how scary it is. Most of them will respond that they genuinely never thought about it, not that they're afraid to consider it. To these people, it's a normal feature of their device that you could never remove. The parent is lamenting that people don't care about this technology - Client Side Scanning, hardware attestation, Push notification surveillance - all of it is enabled not because of fear, but apathy. > And they shouldn't have to. Yet they live in a world where they do. This is fearmongering logic that doesn't really defend the App Store. Putting your faith in a centralized software auditor also requires you to pay attention and stay abreast of scams. It's just a different exploit chain to deliver the same payloads: https://blog.lastpass.com/posts/warning-fraudulent-app-impersonating-lastpass-currently-available-in-apple-app-store https://blog.lastpass.com/posts/warning-fraudulent-app-imper...
• ninjahawk1 6mo ago
  [dead]
• locknitpicker 6mo ago
  > Apple already does this and practically no one is outraged Apple ran a very successful propaganda campaign where they portray themselves as the protectors and enforcers of a secure environment where users are safe from attacks from the wild internet. See Apple's spin on blocking cookies. Therefore, users of Apple products are conditioned to believe these measures exist for their own personal benefit, unlike Google which is presumed to be motivated to abuse your trust.
• deaton 6mo ago
  [dead]
• kennywinker 6mo ago
  Apple is the classic “good king”. By and large they have used their power in ways that benefit users. Other than enriching apple, there’s been no direct or apparent harm to the end user from the walled garden. I know that is a controversial point, but harms we don’t ever know about are pretty hard to get upset about. But the “good” king never lasts. They’re always eventually replaced by a despot, and all the power you ceded to the “good” king falls into the hands of the bad king. Which is why ceding that power is a bad idea, and kings are a terrible system of government.
  • chermi 6mo ago
    Please explain what makes them good? They make a better product than most, but they also charge more than most. That's just a business model.
    • raddan 6mo ago
      For one thing, Apple has tended to focus on privacy at the expense of profit. Apple could certainly be monetizing all of their user data. Now more than ever. It's not just businesses that want your data to sell you stuff, it's the hyperscalers wanting to funnel it into AI training. Apple is not perfect, by any means. I recently had a conversation with a former Apple employee about how they employ differential privacy internally. This former employee was upset about Apple's interpretation of one parameter ("privacy budget"), but the fact that we're having this conversation at all is a positive. Google, despite being an early adopter of differential privacy, is on the other side of the privacy spectrum: virtually everything they provide is intended to capture what you do on- or off-line. I will pay a premium for Apple stuff for this, and other reasons. I do wish they were more developer-friendly, however. Enough so that every time I buy a new computer I have to run through the mental calculus of whether I'd rather fight with the cathedral or the bazaar. I recently bought a new computer and the cathedral won the last round.
      • curt15 6mo ago
        >For one thing, Apple has tended to focus on privacy at the expense of profit. A company reveals its priorities when it is forced to make inconvenient choices. What privacy compromises did the CCP force out of Apple in exchange for doing business in China?
• isodev 6mo ago
  That's perhaps where the part about educating less tech-savvy folks comes in. There are even professionals in tech under the mistaken belief that Apple meaningfully adds value in exchange for one's freedom to use one's device as one chooses. Big Tech loves normalising the story how only they can help
• Magnusmaster 5mo ago
  And it was a huge mistake. The laws are the same for everyone. If Apple can do this then so can Google.