There are so many categories where you cannot load software outside of what the manufacturer provides that you cannot list them. It would also be impractical to allow otherwise for many of these. Then you end up with warranty issues.
Would you allow people to load software of their choice for their automobiles? Tesla is fighting this one now where people are paying a third party to boost their horsepower.
Smart TVs usually are limited by their OS and encumbered by licensing that locks down what can be loaded. This mostly is because of decoding legalities
Who becomes liable if your privacy, assets, or even the device, are compromised because you were able to load software not vetted? Do you want a world where you need a virus scan program for your phone?
I look at it this way, you have a choice in what you buy, because a manufacturer does not adhere to your desire is by no means justification for forcing them to do so.
To be fair, that's only for lack of skills (not blaming people for not having them, but it's the main reason)
I can flash most of my devices with the software I want, my cousin is a rally driver and he hacks into cars ECUs all the times, they are not locked by design, you need the tools and the expertise though
> Smart TVs usually are limited by their OS and encumbered by licensing that locks down what can be loaded.
Not if the are android TVs, you can still side load apps.
Anyway they still work as normal TVs if you completely ignore the "smart" part, iOS devices don't work if you don't authenticate on Apple servers
> Do you want a world where you need a virus scan program for your phone?
Tons of photos, videos and private informations are leaked everyday from iPhones
It is a false sense of security
> because a manufacturer does not adhere to your desire is by no means justification for forcing them to do so.
But it could be because it's breaking some law
In Italy ISPs are forced to let you chose between the ISP bundled modem or the one you buy and release all the information you need to make it work on their networks
If they refuse to comply, you can sue them
People also want to pay no taxes until the police doesn't show up when somebody breaks into their home. Same with health insurance.
Obviously yes.
> Smart TVs usually are limited by their OS and encumbered by licensing that locks down what can be loaded. This mostly is because of decoding legalities
It's because of DRM. Nothing here benefits the customer.
> Who becomes liable if your privacy, assets, or even the device, are compromised because you were able to load software not vetted?
You, the owner, of course.
> Do you want a world where you need a virus scan program for your phone?
Like on Android?
> I look at it this way, you have a choice in what you buy
You don't. That's the whole point of walled gardens, taking that choice away from you.
This is a great example of Orwellian doublethink.
Just like people "love relevant ads" that Google provides People never love gatekeepers or ads. They love secure smartphones and relevant web search results. Users enjoy the benefits a gatekeeper can provide, but they would be just as happy to get the benefits without the downsides.
It was reasonable for Apple to use gatekeeping at first. It was simple and workable. But after more than a decade, they should have something a lot better.
Like app sandboxing and web technology-based apps that can be installed from outside the App Store while maintaining the integrity of your device.
Apple is no longer acting in their users best interests, they're acting in their own. And they're exploiting their market share to do so, in an extremely anti-competitive way.
In the short-term it's a cash grab for Apple and in the long-term its a poison that will eat at the company's foundation. They should even the playing field and compete on it as they do so well.
My two reasons:
1. I bought cellphones before the iPhone. This is nothing new.
2. I don't need everything to run on my phone. The amount of things I can't run on my phone, but wish I could is incredibly tiny, compared to the perceived additional utility my iphone gives me compared to my last Android or dumbphone.
Moreover, I also own a Nintendo Switch and am considering buying a Playstation. I think as a consumer, I am not alone in accepting that certain devices will only run manufacturer approved software.
You certainly are not, but that doesn't mean your opinion is the only valid opinion
I don want to be married, I don't think other people should be forced out of marriage because it's ok for me...
Why not demand to be able to have control over your own devices?
Meanwhile, I already have plenty of devices that I have control over.
That's like asking why not insist that your Tesla Model 3 has a diesel engine, a manual transmission and the ability to crawl up boulders. Not everyone buys things for the same reasons.
You can give Apple initial (and practically temporary if you do not want to take it back) control over the device without actually forcing everyone else to do the same.
> I would have simply bought a different product.
What if you liked everything Apple does except the part about not allowing you to install 3rd party applications?
> That's like asking why...
As i wrote in other posts, these comparisons 99.9% of the time miss important details so they're not helpful. E.g...
> ... diesel engine, a manual transmission and the ability to crawl up boulders.
...these having nothing to do with iOS allowing users to install applications from outside the App Store.
Wait a second, why is there all this bloatware on my phone after I turned it on for the first time? How do I get rid of it? Is it really gone even though it says I deleted it? Why do I need to go on a rabbit hunt in deep tech forums to make sure of that? Why is everyone saying to "just" root your phone to take control over it? Why does this tracking feature turn back on after updates? Why do I get the uncertain feeling that this free antivirus program should be run through a separate antivirus program?... etc. x100 other questions I have. I really don't care to have any of them answered, because I have the option not to.
Instead of demanding all this or asking much of these questions, I have the choice to buy an iPhone. I understand the (great) possibilities that I'm giving up in return, and I'm very good with that. I like this choice. I buy an iPhone for what it can't do. This next sentence sums it all up: it's important to understand that an Android can't do what an iPhone by purposeful design can't do.
Google could have this without having Android itself disallow 3rd party applications.
> I also want the manufacturer to have complete control so much that I never need to have an anti-virus. Scratch all that, I demand it. How come I cannot get this?
If you are afraid of viruses on your phone you can avoid that by using only applications from reputable sources (like the aforementioned app store). You do not need to lock down the device for everyone else just because you are afraid.
> Wait a second, why is there all this bloatware on my phone after I turned it on for the first time? How do I get rid of it? Is it really gone even though it says I deleted it? Why do I need to go on a rabbit hunt in deep tech forums to make sure of that?
What does all of this have to do with Android allowing 3rd party applications? All that is up to your device manufacturer.
> Why is everyone saying to "just" root your phone to take control over it?
Because sadly not even Android provides the ability to 100% unlock it out of the box for all devices.
> Why does this tracking feature turn back on after updates? Why do I get the uncertain feeling that this free antivirus program should be run through a separate antivirus program?... etc. x100 other questions I have. I really don't care to have any of them answered, because I have the option not to.
Note that you do not have an option here, the ability to not be able to answer any of those are forced on you by Apple - Apple never gave you any option outside not using their phones, but you cannot both use their phones (because you actually like them) and be able to install 3rd party applications.
> Instead of demanding all this or asking much of these questions, I have the choice to buy an iPhone. I understand the (great) possibilities that I'm giving up in return, and I'm very good with that. I like this choice.
What i refer to in my comments isn't the choice about what sort of device you can buy, what i refer to is being in control of your device after you bought it. Of course you can choose to not buy an Apple device, but after buying it you lose any form of control over your own device.
I think this part is completely tripping you up from understanding all these replies where you dissect comments bit by bit.
People are okay with not having this control. In fact, many pay for it to be done for us, and furthermore, want a more securely, closed environment without the proposed options. To many, this falls apart when more doors and options start to open.
That's not what the situation is, though. I can love everything about my car except the part about it using gas. If they don't make that car in a non-ICE version, then I have no recourse. The same thing applies to this. They don't make a device that allows you to install any 3rd party apps. It's not an option so it's a pointless discussion.
It's dangerous to haphazardly disregard that as meaningless, by extension it's such movements that fight for very valid consumer rights, like actually owning the hardware that people pay money for.
When I buy a piece of hardware I expect to own it, to run on it whatever I want, to be able to repair it, not to be a "tolerated guest" with only limited access and everything thrown my way to make self-repair as difficult as possible by design.
Others, in the meanwhile, should be able to install whatever application they want if they want to do that. Just because the current situation aligns with what you want to do doesn't mean that it is the perfect situation for everyone - but as long as your situation isn't affected (assuming what you want is about you and not about forcing everyone else to be like you) then you should be fine.
1. Users have perfect choice in which apps they install.
2. Developers will release their apps on all available app stores.
But many users are compelled to install apps that they would prefer not to and it's not at all obvious that developers would support two app stores instead of one given the choice. The net result of that combination is that some (many?) people would be compelled to use both app stores against their inclination.
The only wrong part is users not being in control over what they can install on their devices and from where they will install them.
Yes, it is possible that people will be forced to install applications they do not want, but this isn't something that is or even should be up to the OS vendor to try and protect against - the person being forced to do that is the one who should and if they cannot, then legal action should be seeked. The entire issue is outside the scope of the OS.
You can argue (as I think you are) that those losses are outweighed by the gains of a more open ecosystem, but to many users they are meaningful losses.
The biggest irony of all this is that consumers don't seem to realize the harm Apple is doing, because Apple is busy pulling the wool over their eyes by telling them they are protecting their security and privacy. iOS is a nanny state. Apple maintains a culture of fear among consumers to achieve its business goal, which is to maintain its monopoly position.
Console hardware doesn't have much value by itself: Computers are plentiful, so if you just want something to run software pick up a Raspberry Pi or Nvidia Jetson. Their value derives from the games that companies make, so ceding power to the game companies(via Nintendo) makes your console more valuable.
Look at Macs vs. PCs. There are entire industries dedicated to fixing the problems presented by the amount of options available on a PC. I don't want that. I want a device that I know works to do the things I need it to do. If the day comes where I need to do something I can't, I'll need to find another device.
Also, it's nice that you mention Macs. On Macs, you can install any app bypassing the AppStore. As it should be on a proper computer, and iPhone IS a computer.
The lack of UX-degrading software on the iPad is also the primary reason why I’ve been pushing my friends and family away from the Mac and onto the iPad. With the limited software ecosystem of the iPad, there’s far less things for them to screw up on the Mac.
And yes,I've seen Macs of average users. Never saw anything really wrong there. You are exaggerating the issue.
Why don't you address it then? There is a world of more open software and hardware out there if you want that freedom. Why should everyone be subject to exactly the product you want?
You see, you too want the product I am describing, but you are too myopic to understand it. Maybe it is because you come from a better place than I, where the government does not actively censor app stores. Imagine, that some day Apple will remove the app you use, would you still say 'ok, I knew what product I bought'?
With iOS devices, you don't buy a product that can run a set of apps. You buy a product where the app you use may stop working any day, because some random moderator or executive at Apple will decide this way.
This has happened to me with more products than I can count on both the Mac and PC side and with nearly every mobile device I've ever used. Tons of apps on SymbianOS and Windows Mobile that worked on one device didn't work on the next device I bought. The current environment is a vast improvement on everything that came before it.
Maybe that's why you're being so condescending. We've lived through the evolution that got us here while you, quite clearly, think that open, by default, equals better simply because it's better for you as an individual. There are many, many people that view the iPhone environment and Apple's ecosystem as the better option. They're obviously all wrong.
In a market where both options exist why should one change to be like the one you prefer?
You claim that users 'agree' to this when they buy Apple devices. But to what exactly that agree? That apple can take away any app they use, any time? Even the one that was perfectly available when buying the device?
The 'deal' you get with apple by buying their hardware can be altered at any time, so the only thing you can do is pray that they don't alter it any further.
> You claim that users 'agree' to this when they buy Apple devices.
I claimed no such thing. Read my words directly and please don't put your own spin on them.
In a market where both options exist why should one change to be like the one you prefer?
"Google is apparently taking down all/most fediverse apps from google play on the grounds that that some servers in the fediverse engage in hate speech"
THIS is what you are so tirelessly advocating for
Also, what happens on a Mac has no bearing on what happens on the iPhone even if I made an analogy using the Mac. I need that type of access on my Mac. If they ever remove that, I'll need to find another option. That's not the case with the iPhone so your point is moot.
With Android, at least you can sideload the apps, and firewalls can be circumvented fairly easily. As for laws, well, not all laws are to be obeyed.
Tell that to the people living in China.
That's incorrect. Just don't use it.
What's the argument here, why not just don't use an iPhone then? Why turn an iPhone into more of an Android? I have an iPhone because I don't want to be like an Android. It's a feature to me that this (and other possibilities, bad and good) is not possible, hence why I bought it.
You have to understand that to many of us it is very much a feature that it's not possible to sideload or allow more control of your device. It's not lack of a feature, it is a feature. Just as much as a feature to you is the ability to sideload or take more control. This is why I should buy an iPhone and you should not. My preferences are different than yours. I do not want you, myself, or others to have some of these abilities; not merely the option not to use them.
I very much like the iPhone because of design architecture differences over Android. It's not perfect but (imo) closer to perfect than Android. We live in a world with many options and not all must subscribe to the same paradigm.
But you don't have to have it be like Android.... All you have to do is not install other app sores.
If I wanted choice in App Stores I would buy an Android phone. I don't care about choice of App Stores and I prefer the consistency of a single, consistent, secure source of Apps. Therefore, I bought an iOS device.
And you can have that. By not installing other app stores.
> reduces fragmentation
You don't have to fragment anything. Just only use the Apple App store.
> If I wanted choice in App Stores
You are not forced into choosing anything. All you have to do is not install other app stores, and you don't have to worry about choice.
> improves the overall user experience of the product.
You can have this improvement! If the Apple app store provides this value, then just only use the Apple app store.
> ...prefer the consistency of a single, consistent, secure source of Apps.
What is consistent when every app player is part of a different app store? Suddenly Microsoft has their own, Google has their own, Epic Games as their own, etc.
No thank you.
What is consistent would be your experience if you choose to only use the Apple App store. That experience would remain consistent.
> No thank you.
Then don't use those app stores?
If the conversation is about your rights, as an Apple user, then other people doing what they want with their own phones does not matter.
Someone can, right now, remove their app from the Apple app store, and nobody would claim that if they did they, then they are infringing on your rights as a user. So I am not sure why you would bring that up.
Nobody would claim that you are forced to do anything, if an app just removed themselves completely from an app store, so that is not relevant.
Why don't you just not use it then if you don't like it the way it is?
But yes, the options are too few and things can go like apples - one bad Apple can spoil the bunch.
>Nobody is forcing you to buy an Apple product, and there are plenty of stellar alternative products from numerous other brands.
We want to fix things (even in companies that we otherwise might like) that we think are morally unacceptable. That's how progress is made.
You can advocate your own position too, nothing wrong with both of us doing so.
Because many of us feel that the alternative (The nightmare that is the desktop PC application ecosystem) would be far worse, especially on a smartphone.
Is being in control and having choice a nightmare?
Meanwhile the city dweller chooses the opposite for many reasons and makes different concessions, but it suits them.
Neither is these are strictly wrong but to claim one is better than the other _for everyone_ is misguided and is essentially what this argument is here. Pick your own path but don’t presume it’s the right one for everybody and don’t destroy the other’s ecosystem such that they can no longer choose it.
The choice for others to have no choice is not really much of a choice - not only i want to have a choice in what i install on iOS devices but i also want the ability to have a choice available in all of the devices i paid for, especially in an environment where other companies see Apple's success and become too thirsty for it and try to copy them (see Microsoft as an example).
I don't think it's Apple's fault if other companies try to copy them poorly. I'm very familiar with what you mean and it bothers me too, but I don't think that means Apple needs to change.
Like others,I prefer Apple to have a tightly controlled App Store and believe that the benefits far outweigh the ability to install software from a 3rd party App Store.
For example, Apple requiring Sign In with Apple (when signin with Google/Facebook are implemented) where you can hide your email address. That’s not possible with multiple app stores. Apple helps lead the way with privacy.
If you want multiple app stores and all that, just buy an Android phone. iPhone is for people like me who want a tightly controlled experience. That’s the way it’s designed. You don’t buy a Corolla and get mad that you can’t off road with it, do you?
What you describe is possible with multiple app stores and allowing 3rd party apps - you just do not use those other stores and apps. Nobody is forcing you to use a 3rd party app store, but Apple is forcing everyone to go through their store.
You can keep your tightly controlled experience by not using anything else than Apple - but that doesn't mean everyone has to be forced to do the same thing.
> You don’t buy a Corolla and get mad that you can’t off road with it, do you?
99.9% of the time such comparisons ignore details and derail discussion, so they aren't very helpful.
Allowing 3rd-party app stores has predictable negative externalities (privacy, security, etc.). Which is why I and others are not interested in that development. Apple is able to make developers engage in less shitty business practices precisely because they can control the distribution of software through the App Store . It’s no surprise that as Apple has increasingly focused on privacy and removing tracking capabilities and other dark patterns that developers are trying to find a way around Apple’s restrictions. It’s not like they all of a sudden implemented a new fee. It’s been there for years.
> 99.9%....
I guess this is the .1%? You don’t buy something expecting it to do something completely different. You don’t buy an iPhone expecting to install whatever you want. You don’t buy a Corolla expecting to off-road with it.
No.
> You don’t buy something expecting it to do something completely different. You don’t buy an iPhone expecting to install whatever you want. You don’t buy a Corolla expecting to off-road with it.
Apple's current behavior isn't written in stone and dictated by God, it can change.
Being able to have multiple app stores on android is also pretty good. I have an iPhone for work, and it's fine, but I don't know how people live with one. Everything wants to have ads or wants me to pay for it.
I specifically bought an iPhone to facetime my family from another country. I'd love to be able to have my apps from my old android. Or, use facetime from an android...
But yeah, I'd love to install whatever I want and that's what I'd expect instead of having to buy everything twice when I switched OSes.
There's nothing unique about Facetime, except it's Apple exclusive.
That does indeed offer a solution, but I think the result is a fractured ecosystem where eventually apps end up on the "other " app store for one reason or another (They want a feature they can't get on the official one etc.).
With apple, devlopers have to bend over backwards to fit the ecosystem. That's both good and bad of course, but it keeps the ecosystem in one place with all apps being in the "safe" app store. I don't have to wonder whether that one app I want is safe to sideload/get from a third party store etc.
What I think is hard to understand is that I really really don't assign any value to being able to "do what I want" with my device. I absolutely don't want it to be anything like a PC and I don't mind being told what I can and can't do, for very little benefit, such as a tiny bit of security or a tiny bit of simplicity. It doesn't even have to be a lot.
Many employers do that very thing. How many people have been compelled by employment circumstances to install Zoom despite its dubious pedigree? What happens when a corporate timecard app exists only in a 3rd party app store?
Having a choice is better than not having one, all around.
You can argue the changing employers is hard. I can also argue that 50% of my customers use iPhones and so I have to use one and know how they work. I literally cannot have an app business without dealing with Apple. That’s why this is an anti-trust situation.
Having choice about some things is better than not having one, all around. But some people choose (!) to delegate their choosing to others in certain fields. For example, the choice of whether to purchase safe meat or unsafe meat is a bad choice to have. It's doubly bad if you aren't skilled at determining the safety quality of meat. That's a choice I'm happy to outsource to a third party. Similarly, I'm happy to outsource a variety of choices about app terms of use to Apple.
Did you miss the part where I said that 50% of my customers use an iPhone? To be clear: 50% of the general population in the United States uses an iPhone. 90% of the youth market uses an iPhone. That doesn't leave much of a choice for developers at all.
You simply cannot have a successful app business in the US without being on Apple's app store.
Meanwhile, there are millions of potential employers in the United States.
And no harm would come to consumers by giving them that choice.
With a law that requires Apple to open their platform to allow actually usable sideloading and/or competing app stores, we'd have removed more harm than we've added.
[0] Me, for example since I can't even comfortably put a program, that I wrote, onto my own device without paying Apple $100 a year.
[1] Every one of my business customers who wants a native app for their customers who they already had a relationship with before Apple came along and stuck their nose in to say what we could and could not do with our customers customers devices.
There's a spectrum of what you're allowed to do software-wise with various computing devices you purchase.
One the one extreme, you have something like a washing machine. It's a computing device running a particular suite of software that is essentially impossible for the end user to modify or replace. Many (most?) embedded systems are like this.
On the other extreme, you've got open hardware platforms like the Arduino where you can do whatever you want with the software for a very large value of "whatever you want".
The Raspberry Pi is in the middle, but very close to the Arduino. A Nintendo is somewhere in the middle but close do the dishwasher. Android devices are somewhere in the middle, but closer to the Arduino than the dishwasher (though this varies between devices and manufacturers). iOS devices are, again, somewhere in the middle. Much is allowed. Some things are not. OS X devices are closer to the Arduino than iOS devices are. That's also an intentional choice by Apple.
The placement of iOS along that spectrum is an intentional choice by Apple that customers have proven to support by buying iOS devices in prodigious quantity.
It's not obvious to me that taking a market leading choice in that spectrum and removing it produces less harm in the balance. It might, but it also might not. I'd be inclined to let people vote with their wallet as long as viable alternatives abound, which they do.
Not really, because there is no balance. Way more harm is done in the name of protecting people than is done by allowing freedoms.
The rest of your argument is predicated upon there being some kind of balance. There isn't one.
You don't need to look any further than The War on Drugs to see this. It's already been scientifically proven that letting people do what they want is far better for society. The only people who work to keep drugs illegal are those who benefit from them being illegal. Same thing here.
There's not much more to say about this. You're never going to convince me that removing freedom is better for society when people will always have the choice to remove it for themselves by making the right choices about who to associate with or who to do business with.
They're free to try. There's more of us than them though and we're also free to continue enforcing our existing anti-trust laws and make new ones for important digital platforms.
I advocate for freedom for the common man. What are you doing here?
And the "more of us than them" suggests that rather than any principled approach, you advocate something like the mob rule that the Athenians described to the Melians: the strong do what they will and the weak suffer what they must. Fair enough. That position has been common enough throughout history. Right now lots of people appear to like the way Apple is running their company. Does that make it right? You seem to think no, but are articulating reasons why you should think yes. That's perplexing to me.
I'm trying to make sense of what I think about the disagreement between Apple and Epic. I'm not sure. The arguments people are making against Apple so far seem unsuccessful and problematic to me. I think the collective bargaining argument I've cautiously advanced might make some sense.
If you couldn’t tell that I completely disagree with your backwards notion of what’s right and good by now and that nothing you’ll say will convince me that less freedom for common folks is somehow better...even after I’ve told you this directly...yet you keep responding to me, I guess you just need to have the last word?
Have at it!
Well, in that case, if employers force you to install something then just tell them give you a work phone. Or talk to them, you are adults.
And if that doesn't work, well, tough luck. This sounds like trying to solve a malfunctioning workplace problem by making everyone else suffer - it isn't my or Apple's or anyone else's problem that your boss forces you to install shady apps.
And besides, what different organizations exploring what different tradeoffs? Right now the only practical options are Apple and Android, there aren't really that many options as to have a healthy environment and Google isn't immune to making decisions that can have an overall negative impact to the control that people have over the stuff they buy (see their Stadia console as an example and how it completely and absolutely removes any notion of control from people buying games - not even consoles, let alone PCs, feature such loss of control).
I know people who break from what you call the practical options in both directions -- some who reject smartphones altogether and live their lives without them, doing all their digital work on computers that they have full control over -- and some who use only the stock apps on their phone and wish that app stores were not a thing. They want an entirely managed experience.
Neal Stephenson's essay In the Beginning was the Command Line gets at some of this nicely. Some people are, as he says, Eloi and some Morlocks. That's OK.
Off topic rant: I was going to get her Dell. I had forgotten how bad the consumer Dells were. By the time you get a decent one, you might as well get a MacBook Air.
There's a $20 billion/year cryptlocker industry that excludes iPhones thanks to the difference.
Most of my problems have been with restrictions that Apple has put on me in their Mac and iOS product lines.
> Apple requiring Sign In with Apple (when signin with Google/Facebook are implemented) where you can hide your email address. That’s not possible with multiple app stores.
Yes it is. You, as a consumer can choose to stay in the Apple app store where developers have to follow that rule. If a particular developer is only publishing in the non-Apple app store, you can simply use a competing app that is in Apple’s app store. This is the same advice you’d give to someone who doesn’t like Apple products at all... you’d say “Go buy an Android”. In the future though, you’ll only have to say “Go use a non-Apple app store”.
Are you saying that viruses, malware, ransomware, keyloggers, multiple toolbars have not been a problem in general over two decades?
You remember when “reputable” sites like SourceForge were bundling adware?
Not for me.
> You remember when “reputable” sites like SourceForge were bundling adware?
Sure. What's your point?
I think I know: You would gladly trade the freedom of the general population for security.
If so - I'm sorry to hear that. If not, maybe you should think about what you're saying because you're on the wrong side of the debate.
So would Apple be better off serving you or the general population? I think the numbers speak for themselves.
> I think I know: You would gladly trade the freedom of the general population for security. If so - I'm sorry to hear that. If not, maybe you should think about what you're saying because you're on the wrong side of the debate.
Yes because when the founding fathers came up with the phrase they were referring to the “freedom” to save a little money buying virtual currency to buy the Carlton dance in Fortnite.
You are perfectly free to buy an Android device. Most people would gladly choose some type of assurance that they could install video conferencing software and not have a secret web server installed that they don’t know to delete (ie Zoom)
Seems like a better option than just letting big corps do whatever they want. There's more of us than them.
Even in California where they passed laws that were suppose to “help” Uber and Lyft drivers had the effect of making it harder for truck drivers who wanted to contract to do so.
Let’s just come up with “Five Year Plans”, because feels cant fathom that 50% of the US willingly made a choice to be in the “walled gardened”. Just like after everything that happened with the Microsoft and the Justice Department, “the Year of Linux on the Desktop” never happened and everyone is not compiling their own operating system.
If you wanted to download software, why wouldn’t you go to “download.com” (owned by CNET who is owned by CBS) and you see the software you want from a reputable source that is still bundled with crapware.
Let’s not forget that Chrome became popular originally because it was also bundled with third party software.
Are you saying a grandma starts a PC and immediately knows about SourceForge?
So which search engine do you suggest? What if there were a secondary App Store on phones? Selling a “free” version of some popular app?
Why would the same issue of slimy developers who game the system on PCs not do the same on phones?
On the other hand, isn’t that exactly what users are doing? They are purposefully avoiding a Google product - Android - with all of its “openness” to buy an iPhone. Tell me again why we need the government involved?
Your answer wasn't about PCs, it was about flaws in other products/services.
>So which search engine do you suggest? What if there were a secondary App Store on phones? Selling a “free” version of some popular app?
I would suggest them to not install apps unless it was recommended by someone they trust and they were confident that it wasn't junk. This would apply to PC software, smartphone apps and everything else. Its no different than how you go about finding a trusted mechanic, or a pest control service or a trusted handyman or whatever.
Curation can happen in many ways. Apple could recommend it, your friend who knows about "computers" could, maybe its a magazine/website you trust, etc, etc. The point is about choice and freedom.
We get to make the rules of the economy we want to operate in. The entire purpose of the government is to serve our needs, and if its not doing that we should change the rules. Both sides can make their cases. I am happy to oppose Apples oppressive policies (in this case).
You mean like friends recommending Firefox and someone naturally going to Google to search for “Firefox” and the top link being malware? If someone recommended an app and they found a fake version on the third party App Store how would they know the difference?
How has that worked out for the past 30 years on computers where we are always hearing about yet another ransomware attack?
The point is about choice and freedom.
You mean like “freedom” to choose an Android over an iPhone?
We get to make the rules of the economy we want to operate in. The entire purpose of the government is to serve our needs
Actually you don’t. The executive branch is not chosen by “the people” it’s chosen by the Electoral College which has gone against the popular vote twice in the last 20 years.
The Senate is chosen by the states where each state regardless of population gets two Senators. 46% of the Senators represent around 25% of the population.
The judicial branch is chosen by the two least representatives parts of the government - the executive branch and the Senate.
If you think not being able to sideload apps on a device you didn’t have to buy is, I wonder how you feel about the “War on Drugs”, “War on Crime”, civil forfeiture, imminent domain used to take property and give it to more profitable businesses and the President unilaterally telling a business it has to sell to another company? Is this the government you want to give more power too?
Again, if they are not sure how to discern the difference because of flaws in Google, they should not be using Google. Their friend or maybe a curation website or whatever should give them a direct link. Why are you assuming that this is not possible? People share direct links to websites and videos and other things all the time.
>You mean like “freedom” to choose an Android over an iPhone?
No, that is not freedom. When every company is in on the scam, you need government intervention. When all companies are abusing your privacy, you need new laws. The existing laws were made for non-digital marketplaces. You can setup a lemonade stand without Apple robbing 30% of your sales, but if you try to make an app you first need to beg apple for permission to write software, then apple will rob you of 30% of your sales. Sorry, that is not morally acceptable to me, and I don't even work in the software industry anymore. I work in vaccines. We need new laws as goods and services transition over to digital-markets. Modern problems need modern solutions.
>Is this the government you want to give more power too?
By setting the rules of the economy as such, the government already gave too much power to corporations. Its time to change the balance of power to what we think is morally acceptable. I'm not even saying everything has always sucked. Maybe the existing laws did work fairly well for a while, but I don't believe they have any magical power that we can't amend them as we see fit.
For example, if the only way to fill out my employer's timecard is via an iOS app, should they be compelled to offer the app in all the available app stores?
This is about giving users and developers a choice outside of Apple's app store. If you like freedom and choices, you should get on the right side of this debate.
If some relatively small group of users had a choice, they would always be able to choose Apple's protection.
If you're depending on Apple to stop you from making bad decisions about what kinds of employers to work for, I think you've got bigger problems than what might happen if there were an alternate iPhone app store.
No, but I would get mad if the manufacturer told me what brand of gas I could buy and what roads I could drive on.
As somebody who's been looking and working in it for decades, I don't see it?
To me the actual nightmare are closed walled gardens giving users a false sense of security about the software they offer on their services as supposedly all being "vetted".
And because by now the mobile space is the biggest target there is, malicious actors have shifted their attack vectors accordingly [0].
Even with these walled gardens in place, we've reached a point where the mobile app ecosystem is going trough its own phase of "You need this Norton/McAfee/blah product to keep your device secure/optimized!" just like the PC ecosystem did and still does.
As such the "gatekeepers" have effectively failed at gatekeeping anything that ain't explicit sexual content.
[0] https://www.zdnet.com/article/warning-over-hidden-apps-as-mo...
Now normally I would say that as a company you have the right to legally abuse your userbase however you want, but when you get this big that your profit margin exceeds that of several democratic countries and your particular flavor of abuse is inspiration for product development in general, than I'm going to support you losing that particular privilege.
That is not an artificial restriction. If you take it off road, it will perform as car not designed to be taking off road does. It won't refuse to leave the road to protect Toyota's brand.
Most ship with maleware that can’t be removed (or can’t be removed without giving up on updating the OS.)
Android still doesn’t let you run a lot of 3rd party software (the latest version breaks Termux for example.)
Apple’s anticompetitive behavior also ties people to the platform (iMessage is a great example of this. My family won’t use any other IM app so even if I buy another phone (which I have, it’s supposed to arrive in September) I’ll have to keep my iPhone just to talk to them.)
Finally the hardware is just bad. Qualcomm does not make nice SOCs (IMO) but it could be just because the software they provide with them is complete garbage. There’s no alternative in the US either.
That would happen if apple allowed other organizations to customize the OS which is a different discussion.
The apple iOS model seems to be the most promising here. It comes with huge tradeoffs in user control but for a large part of the worlds population I think its the right choice.
But in this case you dont lose any level of control, since the appstore itself there isnt limited. The only thing not allowed is unsecure apps. Thats all.
Yes the iOS idea is great, but there is no need to impose arbitrary restrictions.
As for the PC, i think what Apple was doing with macOS until recently (allowing you to run unsigned software you downloaded from the Internet by doing the "right click dance") was a perfectly fine compromise between security for computer illiterate people and still being in control for people who know what they are doing.
Nothing about Apple's model requires Apple to be the only one who can say what you can do with your own device - you can still have Apple be in control by default but also provide a way to take control yourself if you know what you are doing.
https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2018/08/fortnites-android-vu...
As a former owner of multiple Maemo devices, avid GNU/Linux and FOSS advocate, and user of F-Droid applications when possible, this "nightmare" is a level of control that I dream about having on my phone...
Even though you can say mobile phones are general computing devices, actually for most of the people they are just media consumption devices.
I believe technical restrictions are not enough in this age alone.
As long as they have rules and it is applied fairly and equally, I prefer controlled and regulated market places.
(Yes, I know you can buy computers without an OS and you can buy computes with Linux as well - but not enough to be realistic for most folks. I'm pretty sure you can buy phones with a different OS as well but again, not realistic choices).
Maybe that's just the developer in me falsely believing people are more competent than they actually are, though.
At some point, you have to have a pretty deep understanding of how Linux and computers work to Google the right things, and then understand and apply a fix – or worse, you may have to work out one on your own, which may entail things like reading source code and patching stuff; I'd say I'm somewhat competent as far as running Linux goes, and I've had numerous issues over the years that I was unable to fix, mundane but non-negotiable things like "getting sound to work". Best case, that'll just require more or less heavy command line usage, which only a tiny minority of people have ever used before and which is highly non-intuitive at first.
That amounts to building a very comprehensive set of skills that is completely worthless to most people otherwise, and that you don't need for Windows or macOS, let alone Android/iOS.
On PCs, already pretty much no one uses Linux outside of tech bubbles (and even there, seems like it's behind both Windows and macOS [0]), apparently somewhere around 1-2% [1] among the general population; in practice, it feels like it should be even less, at least based on what mainstream websites I'm familiar with see. And this is for general-purpose computers, where an open OS might have tangible benefits for the general, non-developer/ops public (not sure which, but I guess such a case could be made) – but phones don't seem to be general-purpose computers for most; it seems they're used for media consumption, taking photos, communication, maybe some light gaming, and not much else – all thinks where the existing walled gardens offer a very compelling experience with assurances for security and quality that open platforms might have a hard time delivering.
A truly open smartphone platform would probably face an even harder uphill battle than desktop Linux, and that's already failed to gain traction time and again. You'd need compatible apps for it to gain traction, but who's going to make those? It'd have to offer a really polished UX, I don't see many people picking a clunky, ugly, bug-ridden phone based on GPL vs. proprietary – lots of people (including me) buy iPhones in part because they enjoy their design and UX. How do you make sure apps aren't scattered across lots of malware-infested app stores? How do you make sure people don't inadvertently shoot themselves in the foot all the time if you don't wall them off from choices that might lead to that? But how do you wall off people on a platform that is truly open? And so on, and so on. Unless some tech giant decides their interests align very much with a truly open and relevant mobile OS, I have a hard time seeing it happen – and even then.
The current tech world is much different from when the major desktop environments solidified; this time around, the vast, overwhelming, huge majority of computer users are not enthusiasts or IT professionals anymore like in the 90s, but completely uninterested and uninvested in the tech apart from having it work for them to do relatively simple tasks, similar to what most people outside of the relevant enthusiast bubbles feel towards cars or stoves. I don't want to run Emacs on my stove and maybe blow myself up in the process, I want it to work reliably and safely and just heat my food. I'd actully like no one to be able to tinker at will with safety-critical software in their cars, because their segfaulting Formula 1 brake patch they got from some Facebook page might mean they plow into me and I die.
[0] https://insights.stackoverflow.com/survey/2020#technology-de... [1] https://gs.statcounter.com/os-market-share/desktop/worldwide
As far as malware, I’m not sure why it would be more of an issue on an open platform than it would on Android. I use Linux as a daily driver, and as long as you’re getting software from trusted sources, it’s not much of a concern. I don’t see why it would be different on mobile.
And with regard to you comments about ease of use, I’m not saying an open phone OS should be the only option, or that it should even be the dominant platform. For most people it probably makes sense to go with a widely supported platform which is safe and easy to use. But it would be nice if there was an alternative available for power users, and people who want to experiment with radically different concepts of how to use a smartphone.
Smartphones are basically the main computers people use nowadays. It’s just kind of a shame you have to go through a corporation to use one.
> I use Linux as a daily driver, and as long as you’re getting software from trusted sources, it’s not much of a concern. I don’t see why it would be different on mobile.
Not sure if that's true – doesn't Google keep the Play store mostly free of serious malware? Apart from stunts like sideloading Fortnite, I'd expect the vast majority of Android users to get all their apps from the Play Store, so that should be reasonably safe. Of course, Google can pretty much force everyone into the Play Store by denying access to Play services and their huge customer base if you don't, so it's a one-stop shop for next to everyone.
But if every company, publisher, developer may host their own, including their own OpenPlay Services, how do you tell what is a trustworthy source? How do you tell if OpenRando Store is trustworthy when a Google search tells you it has this TokTuk app you've heard of? This isn't like server Linux, where most people are reasonably careful with what they install, sources are relatively few and policed well, and people tend to be at least somewhat knowledgeable, so tricking them is quite hard; this also isn't like desktop Linux, which doesn't have market share. This would be a reasonably large mobile platform used by everyone and their grandma to run a large part of their lives.
I'm quite sure most people wouldn't want to have to have a thorough understanding of how apps, app stores, installs, updates, the OS, typical malware, scams etc. work, just so they have a chance at noticing when things are off in some way. I've next to no idea how iOS works, and that's fine with me, and I'm someone who runs Kubernetes clusters for fun. Whoever spares people from having to have that knowledge and do that work and actively manage their phone like a piece of complicated corporate IT equipment will get all the users; they'd get me, for sure. My phone really just has to work and be secure.
This is exactly the situation you have now with Android: anyone can install an APK from anywhere if they want to.
As far as establishing trustworthy sources, I would imagine this would work a lot like using Apt on debian. You could have a trusted package manager where there is some vetting process for getting listed, and you would trust the community to identify and report malicious packages quickly.
Also unlike the app store or google play, you'd likely be running mostly open source software you can inspect yourself if you want to make sure it's safe.
Oh, the iPhone? Yeah people don’t care. Having Apple vet apps is a benefit, not a curse.
All of them distribute games and entertainment apps (music, video, etc). Sony has also distributed apps not related to entertainment, e.g. folding@home.
Saying a console != a smartphone doesn't help discussion when what we're discussing is walled gardens here.
https://gamerant.com/final-sword-switch-eshop-remove-legend-...
It was apparently a $17 game.
I believe the (weak) answer to the above is the answer to your question. Features are what matters to the majority of users. The ability to sideload apps itself is not.
I don't mind that Apple keeps a large commission. But I mind the fact, that Apple has a monopoly on iOS software distribution, and the monopoly is always bad for the customers.
iPhone does the trick for me in that regard, the app library is huge, the consistent design is great, the way it syncs with my macbook is irreplaceable.
Being blocked from running arbitrary code on a phone is not a big deal to the vast majority of users. If that's a dealbreak, buy an android phone. But lets not pretend that doesn't come with huge tradeoffs if you like what the iPhone provides.
If I want software freedom I’ll use my laptop.
The only devices I get SW from other sources is my computer, phone, and watch -- at least as far as I can recall. And while my computer is a Windows PC and my phone an iPhone - I have never once thought that I'd have access to more/better SW if the iPhone was more open like my PC.
I get what you're saying, but it is so far down the list of concerns for most consumers as to be a complete non-factor.
Android does have a poor status though, the value of it's phones drops precipitously every few months until it levels at $100-$200 a year later, or it was cheap in the first place and good like xiaomi. iPhones don't drop like that.
I don't trust the android ecosystem in the slightest bit (to the extent that I don't like people connecting to my wifi with their random android devices) to be secure, but I could install whatever I wanted.
Because most of them don't really care until it directly impacts them, and because Apple spends a huge amount of money on their marketing.
Because the hardware has a lot of direct advantages (Apple has the best chips) as well as user service lock (iTunes, iMessage).
https://www.macstories.net/stories/before-the-app-store-the-...
https://9to5mac.com/2011/10/21/jobs-original-vision-for-the-...
I think we should speak more about this fact, so that people think twice before they buy some device.
I only make websites, but I am worried, that at some point, Apple would want me to pay them, so that my website is openable on their devices.