We now have to live with a bunch mostly sensible though occasionally over-sensitive rules to make sure we don't try to trick and cheat our non-tech brethren.
We of course still have plenty of other super-techy places we can play—: Linux, Raspberry Pies, Embedded Devices, the whole of server-side internet.
Yet we still moan because someone has walled a bit of it off to protect ordinary people from charlatans.
Boo-hoo.
Even YC isn't clean in this regard. They funded a startup called InstallMonetizer that promulgated the drive-by installer problem: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5092711 . There's a great quote from that post:
> You can make a lot of money doing all kinds of popular things -- pimping women, selling drugs, selling 'likes' on facebook, selling botnets that create fake clicks on advertisers, ponzi schemes, etc. Some are illegal, some are just barely legal, but they are all damaging to someone. This line of business is known as 'scummy' and InstallMonetizer is plain 'scummy'.
Yes we have to blame those who perpetrate the behavior, but we also have to blame ourselves for not being more aggressive in sounding the alarm. For many influential people who could have put a stop to this, the Upton Sinclair quote applies:
> It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.
Governments are partly to blame here, for not addressing platform economies. But some are working on it [1].
[1] http://ec.europa.eu/information_society/newsroom/image/docum...
For services, there is more scope to prevent misuse, but it's a never-ending battle.
(Mobile) web is where the action is these days. The conversion from there to app installs is typically beyond terrible. It just doesn't matter how good your app is. The vast majority of your web users will never see your app or care to see it.
A lot of the stuff that currently requires native, you might be able to pull off via wasm instead. In any case, most users simply don't bother with installing apps for anything except a handful of things they really need. You are simply not the center of their universe. So, focus on mobile web.
Make it a progressive mobile web app and you have Android covered as well. And whatever else people might use these days (Ipads, Amazon kindles, chrome books, windows ARM, etc.). Add a bit of responsive design and it works on desktops as well. If successful, you can still package your web app as a native app. Lots of other web developers do this. If Apple ever crippled their embedded browser, it would break most of the apps in their store.
A game is only a game if all the players have a shared set of rules and can trust each other to stay within them. As soon as someone breaks the rules the game is over, and the freedom provided is lost.
You're constructing a scenario to justify an abstract argument. The wall is the only salient feature in the walled garden metaphor. There's no terror lurking outside.
If you mean to imply that Apple's oversight has some advantages, such as security, that's a separate issue.
In the context of Apple's app store rules, the wall refers to Apple's rules. The absence of those rules does not reduce your freedom as a developer; you're can still abide by them without Apple requiring your to do so. But you have more choice without the rules.
For example, justice in a free society should not be arbitrary and capricious. It should be fair and equal, and applied with discretion. A society where minor rules are difficult to understand but are enforced to the maximum extent is a tyranny.
Except for some corporate environment, I don't see how it's not their fault. It's easier than ever to make an informed decision before using one's wallet and it's every living, functioning human's duty to improve, grow and learn.
Totally tired of apps that are nothing else than options-less and incontrolable browsers.
No - apps are fine.
Even app stores are fine.
It's the fact that you can't distribute an app outside an app store ... this is a problem.
So basically Apple is the problem, everyone else is fine.
But even if they did that (which I rate as "unlikely but not as impossible as many others think"), there's a big problem with them being inconsistent and even capricious in rules enforcement coupled with badly communicating when issues arise. While that's a huge problem as long as they're effectively the only game in town for app distribution, it would... still be a huge problem even if that weren't true, because the chances are they would still far and away be the biggest app store.
My mom would never have to worry about getting malware because she searched for a printer driver if she had an iPad. Heck, she wouldn’t have had to worry about a printer driver at all.
And if you want to see what happens on mobile when you have an App Store with an out clause like on Android for the common consumer, look no further than what happened with Fortnight.
A) Android doesn't have some vast and ugly problem with malfeasance.
B) It's entirely possible to educate customers that if they go outside of respected shops - they run the risk of problems.
C) The 'Windows' analogy doesn't really hold because mobile OS APIs are totally locked down. Any app installed on Windows/Mac can effectively wipe out your machine. It's a huge risk. An android app has very limited API access, moreover, the user has to grant explicit rights.
Fortnight is not a bad example of anything really.
There's no evidence that people really benefit from fully walled garden.
Moreover, there's evidence that they can't get the apps and functionality they need, because there are quite a number of apps that simply cannot be easily developed and deployed in iPhone - so many corporate and B2B apps. It's possible in only limited scenarios.
The 'security' issue is not real. It's a tactic by Apple to control the market and that's mostly it.
https://drfone.wondershare.com/android-tips/top-android-viru...
It's entirely possible to educate customers that if they go outside of respected shops - they run the risk of problems.
People have been saying the same thing about PCs since the 80s. How has that worked out?
An android app has very limited API access, moreover, the user has to grant explicit rights.
Like “Access File System”,”read phone state”, etc.?
Fortnite isn’t a good example of anything.
https://www.cnet.com/news/just-as-critics-feared-fortnite-fo...
There's no evidence that people really benefit from fully walled garden.
Except that you never hear about the malware on iOS that is able to be installed on Android devices.
There's no evidence that people really benefit from fully walled garden.
There is plenty of B2B software on iOS, a large multinational company I use to work for distributed all types of apps for their employees that never went through the App Store. Another company I worked for distributed B2B software for other customers.
Moreover, there's evidence that they can't get the apps and functionality they need,
What apps does the general non techie consumer “need” or “want” that they can’t get on iOS.
Android - it's very limited what they can do - and they need permission.
This is perfectly fair.
There is basically no reason for a walled garden - that 'there exists some malware' on Android is not evidence that 'open' is a problem, it's just evidence that 'open will have some problems' - which I admit.
The very minor issues that can exist on Android are easily worth the open nature of the platform.
"What apps can't I get" ?
Well, this HN reader for one.
There are 100x more examples of decent apps being rejected from iOS than there are serious problems in Android.
Have you seen the list of permissions that allow an app to do basically anything on an Android phone? And if you think asking for permission before an app is granted these widespread permission are good enough, that’s just about as effective as UAC was on Vista.
There is basically no reason for a walled garden - that 'there exists some malware' on Android is not evidence that 'open' is a problem, it's just evidence that 'open will have some problems' - which I admit. The very minor issues that can exist on Android are easily worth the open nature of the platform.
It may be worth it to you but not to the millions of people that click yes to every dialog box. These are the same people that have ten toolbars on their web browser.
Well, this HN reader for one. There are 100x more examples of decent apps being rejected from iOS than there are serious problems in Android.
The people who want an app to read Hacker News are dwarfed by the amount of people who would just as easily install ransomware on their phone as they would on Windows.
I’ll install almost any app on my phone/iPad/AppleTV just to try out because it can’t do any harm. I would have to treat an Android phone like I treat installing software on Windows - only from a few trusted sources.
You can’t even install CloudFlare’s recently released app without it asking for microphone access and file access.
In any case, this was in the context of app stores. What I meant is the ability to go flip a switch that enables sideloading, as you can do with Android or Win10 Store apps, if you know that one exists - on the assumption that if you do, you also know the risks. On Win10 specifically, this is stashed away in the system settings page titled "For developers", which comes with a bunch of warnings, so it's not something you can turn on by accident.
Or an app like Fortnite....