I see no evidence that this harms consumers at all. Quite the opposite.

I like the walled garden and have no interest in it going away. I like that my mom can install apps and not worry about them spying on her.

I like that developers aren’t allowed to use their own payment processors. I don’t want to input my credit card into your black box payment system that might or might not charge me correctly.

I see that it does harm developers, but that’s a different conversation entirely.

If you want to install whatever apps you want, buy an android phone! And have fun while their bloat ware and preinstalled crap spams you with notifications and scams you.

You state those preferences as if there's no possible way they could be provided while allowing competition.

You have been presented a single option, and find that you like some aspects of the outcome. What's being hidden from you are other options where the same or similar outcomes can happen which might have even more benefits you would like.

Right now you seem to have what you consider a benevolent dictator. What happens when the dictates are not as benevolent?

You desires matter less to Apple than they do to organizations that actually have to worry about users users leaving more. That's because there's so much you give up if you leave. How long until this is abused? Also, what of those that are already abused because of Apple's power? Where Apple makes arbitrary decisions dictated not by the rules they've put forth but by internal business decisions and the desire to prop up their own offerings?

What about a world where Apple was a clearinghouse for what was allowed on the phone, but followed a very clear set of rules that dictated what was allowed and not, and took a well defined fee to review apps, and allowed App stored to be registered and submit apps for review and apply their own additional rules on top? Wouldn't you get most the benefits you like out of that? Wouldn't that provide both competition and provide a similar level of security?

What I like to compare it to, is cars. If you want to only ever take your Volkswagen to a Volkswagen dealer, buy Volkswagen parts and only carry out service done by Volkswagen engineers - you can absolutely do that and no one will or should ever stop you. But the second Volkswagen says you can't use a 3rd party part in your car that you bought - everyone should be up in their arms about it. There's a line here - and it should end at customers choice, always.

The simplest way to do this would be like on android devices when you want to unlock a bootloader - a one way, single step process, where the phone wipes itself and reboots and is then "unlocked". If you did that on iPhones it would be enough of discouragement to stop all the mums and grandmas from accidentally installing dodgy software off the internet, but it still leaves the final choice to you, the user. You want a bodyguard, not a nanny - there's a difference.

> the second Volkswagen says you can't use a 3rd party part in your car that you bought - everyone should be up in their arms about it.

There's a risk-benefit question to be weighed even with cars; Lots of parts in a Volkswagen are sealed for safety reasons, and (in many countries) your car will get inspected regularly (here in Portugal it's an annual occurrence) to make sure your modifications don't impact the safety of your car and to others you meet on the road.

Having to re-tether your phone periodically to a diagnostic device to rekey and verify the trusted base seems like a reasonable analogue to me and that's largely where unlocking on iPhone is at the moment.

> like on android devices when you want to unlock a bootloader - a one way, single step process

I think "single step" is a bit disingenuous here: It's many little steps that all have to be performed correctly, and that then need to be sealed by relocking the bootloader (wiping the phone again) or you'll end up with a phone that cannot any longer protect your data from physical access, and may have a diminished capability to protect you from remote access.

There's a case to do this in the lab, but I think nobody in their right mind should put their banking details in an unlocked phone -- and yet that's exactly where most guidance about unlocking various Android devices leaves its users...

> There's a line here - and it should end at customers choice, always.

> it still leaves the final choice to you, the user

If I woke up to find my bank account suddenly $100k lighter, I'd want my money back, and giving the bank any opportunity to say well Geo, you made a choice to rip out the trusted base we were relying on would fill me deeply with regret for letting the Internet convince me this was something as simple as choice.

Right now, there are relatively few people in the world who would be confronted with that dilemma -- precisely because iPhones don't make this easy. Do you agree? Or can you explain why you think it would make our society better to have more people face that?

>>Right now, there are relatively few people in the world who would be confronted with that dilemma -- precisely because iPhones don't make this easy. Do you agree? Or can you explain why you think it would make our society better to have more people face that?

Well, I think you grossly overestimate the impact iphones have on financial security of people world wide. iPhones are a minority of all phones, in some countries less than 1% of all, and yet people aren't losing their life savings left and right. Yes it happens, but it also happens to iphone users - they are just targetted in different ways. And I think you are, like many others in this thread, assuming that it's all or nothing - android has a reputation for dodgy security, but I really don't think it's deserved. No bank app will allow installation on android if you have root enabled. None of them allow screen capture or 3rd party text input while the app is running. And yet, you have the freedom - you can choose(important word here) what you want to do with the product that you own.

I just don't think this would be anywhere near as large problem as people think, and I would prefer the personal freedom gained by it. Again, on Android, you can flash custom firmware to your phone, yet how many people(outside of HN) ever do it? In cars, you can absolutely reflash the ECU and break every regulation under the sun, and yet how many people(outside of enthusiast/modding circles) do you know who do so? There is no regulation there, no big brother stopping you from doing that - and yet 99.9999% of people never do it. And yes, I come from a country that has annual inspections too - that has absolutely nothing to do with fitting your own parts to a car. Even if I don't buy the OEM brake pads for my mercedes, it will still pass the annual inspection with flying colours. The whole argument that car manufacturers make of "we seal our parts so we know they are good" has been an utter nonsense repeated for at least 70 years now - most parts are not manufactured by them and can be bought directly(like OEM brake pads for mine are actually made by Brembo, so I can either pay £150 to mercedes for a set, or buy them directly from brembo for £90....exact same product).

> No bank app will allow installation on android if you have root enabled

https://forum.xda-developers.com/t/uk-banking-apps-for-roote...

> I just don't think this would be anywhere near as large problem as people think,

That's clear, but:

> you have the freedom - you can choose(important word here) what you want to do with the product that you own.

isn't using the definition of "choose" that I'm using, and I'm trying to make a point to you on this that I'm not entirely sure came across, so I'll try another way: Yes, you can choose to run someone over with your car, and it can happen by accident because of drink, but if you choose to install HideRoot, are you really aware of what you're choosing, or is the potential loss merely the same kind of accident?

I think speaking of the population who roots, probably not, and although most of the rooters I've met aren't on HN, I can imagine if you think most of them are, you might have a different perspective on that.

You can similarly think banks are wrong to try and override your "choice" to root things that you own, but they're also making an effort to try and keep their customers safe, and I think this is an important motivation to consider when asking why Apple makes it difficult to replace parts of the trusted base as well.

That being said, I'm not even remotely naive about the fact that the App Store revenue is probably an important factor as well for Apple, I just think that the solution has to be better/more-thought-out than you initially suggested -- for Android as well.

Except the apps are the 3rd-party parts.

In your example: Volkswagen imposes quality controls on those parts, making sure they're not going to blow up or subvert the car.

As soon as other shops can install 3rd-party parts, you have a race to the bottom for shops, no one's enforcing quality controls, and you wind up with cars that, for example, get better performance by violating emissions standards except when they're actively being tested.

(So, maybe we should be using some manufacturer other than Volkswagen. :-)

I'm not sure I understand what you are trying to say.

>>As soon as other shops can install 3rd-party parts

But....they can. Of course they can. What's more, both EU and US law protects the ability of 3rd parties to make replacement parts, and your ability as the consumer to fit those parts. The law goes so far as forbidding manufactuers from voiding your warranty due to fitting of non-OEM parts unless they can specifically prove that the part that you fitted caused problems.

>>you wind up with cars that, for example, get better performance by violating emissions standards except when they're actively being tested.

Again, that's already a thing and has been a thing since forever. Modding is extremely popular in some circles. Just like flashing your phone with custom FW is popular in certain circles too, but that doesn't mean that once it's allowed everyone and their grandma will suddenly run some HAXXOR build of iOS.

It was, in hindsight, a lame attempt at a joke, based on Volkswagen's history with skirting emissions controls.

More seriously, it's hard to know what all's installed on your phone, and what all it's doing; car parts are intrinsically sandboxed.

It'll be interesting to see what happens when always-connected self-driving cars have enough compute power to run self-driving systems and people are free to install random apps without great security (because car manufacturers seem to be awful at that). I'm predicting cutesy weather apps that quietly mine crypto all night long...

A bad car part can absolutely cause your car to crash, much more than a malicious app on iOS, which may not even be able to access your photos or messages.

A malicious app on iOS can pose as something it’s not, and ask for your mom’s credit card number.

So can a website, these sort of hypotheticals just seem like pure scaremongering.

Yes, definitely so can a website.

The whole point of Apps is that they are reviewed and therefore are safer than random stuff on the web.

It’s would be scaremongering if these kinds of threat were hypothetical, but of they are pretty widely known.

It’s true that EU and US law protect the ability of 3rd parties to make replacement car parts.

But.. the law also holds those 3rd parties responsible for damage caused by failures of their parts.

No such protection exists for software.

Let’s start with some working legal privacy and fraud protections for software.

Then we can compare software to cars.

Until then, let people buy into a walled garden if they want to.

> In your example: Volkswagen imposes quality controls on those parts, making sure they're not going to blow up or subvert the car.

And they are free to do it. Have your own set of trusted dealers and vendors. Void warranty for off-branded parts. However, once I buy the car I am also free to go to any shitty unsafe vendor I want. VW can't tell me not to do that, because it's my car not theirs.

Do you think it would be okay if Volkswagen remotely shut down your car because they didn't like the brand of gas you put in it (for your own safety of course)?

> In your example: Volkswagen imposes quality controls on those parts, making sure they're not going to blow up or subvert the car.

So, like almost everything you buy? This is why branding and reputation are important. You can be cheap, but you get what you pay for.

But we don't want to have to check brands and research - we want a trusted party ensuring quality because their reputation is on the line.

That does not go away, there's nothing stopping you from buying genuine parts from the manufacturer if you trust them more than the competition.

But having a system that accepts non-genuine parts leads to a more complicated system. Apple's system is simple. Android's system is more complicated because it has multiple app stores. I don't want that complexity.

That's an interesting way of thinking which I've not really encountered outside of Soviet-style centrally controlled economy advocates and the like.

Do you feel the same way about all other things in life where you are presented with a choice? Would you prefer there to only be a single grocery store you get your groceries from, for example?

No I’m in favour of competition, but competition between simple clean focused products, not the Homer cars other people seem to want.

If you want a different App Store then market a different phone don’t drag down the iPhone.

I just don't understand. I really try hard to understand, but I physically can't I think.

Let's say that hypothetically, there was another store present on iOS. Does that stop you(or anyone) from only ever using the Apple App Store?? On Android, there are several other stores available, yet I have never felt the need to use any of them - they exist, they have their own customers.....but....that's it.

It's like if you already have one shop in your village, so you prevent others from opening even though literally nothing would force you to go to these other shops and you can still enjoy the original shop as much as you did before. Literally nothing changes in your life, but you want to prevent others from having a choice, even if you yourself don't appreciate the choice. That's mindboggling to me.

Reading through the replies you got for this post is really quite interesting. I feel like what it boils down to is that there are a decent amount of people that prefer life under an authoritarian regime (whether governmental or corporate). A regime where someone they trust decides for them how they should enjoy their life and protects them from bad choices. Merely allowing a different party from offering a competing choice would undermine the whole premise.

It's a bit like the cruise ship industry where you forgo choice (compared to traveling outside of a tour) but gain safety and the benefit of not having to research or make decisions. If anyone could open up a restaurant or organise an outing on a cruise ship, then that perceived safety disappears and the need to make conscious decisions arises.

As this seems to be a reasonably common theme in these posts I wonder if there's a market for more products that follow a similar purchase incentive, like a fridge that only allows you to insert groceries you've bought from the trusted supermarket.

I pay the Apple tax so to say - so that my mobile experience is as hassle free as can be. And yes, it's worth it. It just works, and i never have to worry about shady apps or wonder too much about the quality of the apps that i download - theres always some lesser than others, but on the whole its all good.

Arguing for other app stores / unsigned apps on the iOS platform is counter intuitive to what made the ecosystem great in the first place.

I had android phones and did all the custom stuff & rooting from the G1 and forwards for many years, in the end i only regret not changing over sooner.

There is nothing great about the "freedom of choice" on the android platform, it all makes for a lesser experience unless you're really into it for other reasons - political/principle.

But....but .....literally no one is forcing you to install and use these other stores. NOTHING about your experience changes at all. Again, I can install the Amazon store in my phone, but.....I just don't. Why is this such a revolutionary idea?

Apple would have to do the work to modify their software to support multiple stores, and they’d have to support the code for that going forward.

They’d be doing that instead of something else productive that I could use.

So it’s a loss to me and other Apple users who appreciate the curated system at the moment.

Your analogy is ‘prevent’ but really it’s ‘not want to do the work to enable’. See how that’s not the same thing? Instead of 'not preventing someone opening a new shop in the village' you're asking them to cut a hole in the side of their store so someone in a greasy food cart can connect up to it and sell smelly burgers with poor food hygiene standards in the middle of their boutique, and then maintain that hole going forward.

They don't want to do that! Many of their customers don't want that! Those customers that do want it can go somewhere else, like Android!

How much work do you really think that it would take them to remove the entitlement on the daemon that installs apps? I have heard that entire App Store frontend was maintained by like a single engineer until like iOS 8. The change would be fairly simple; the amount of time they spend on fighting these things both in court and with technological measure in the OS is many orders of magnitude more than this.

They think it’ll be worse. Many of their customers agree. If you don’t can’t you go elsewhere? Why impose on people happy minding their own business?

>>If you don’t can’t you go elsewhere? Why impose on people happy minding their own business?

That's the same argument, word for word, that people used to defend businesses not serving coloured folk - after all, can't they just go elsewhere? And we as society decided no, they shouldn't have to go anywhere - if you run a business, you have to serve everyone, end of story. I think it's time to do the same for Apple - if you want to run an app platform, you have to allow choice. And if your choice is to stay with App Store and only install apps curated by apple - that's perfectly valid. No one is taking that away from you.

Again, how exactly does that inconvenience you, personally? No one is forcing you to use these other stores, no one is imposing anything on you. They will just exist somewhere for people who want them. Again, I'm on Android but I don't feel like I'm losing anything by the mere existence of the Amazon App store - it's there if you want it, if you don't then that's cool.

And yes, I absolutely think you are overexaggerating the technical difficulty behind allowing people to do this - all Apple needs to do it allow apps to install other apps from packages. It's hardly a groundbreaking architectural change, come on.

I don't think it's a reasonable argument to put people oppressed due to their race with people who want their smartphone to work a bit differently at the same level.

> if you run a business, you have to serve everyone, end of story

This isn't even true! You can deny service to anyone for any reason as long as it's not a protected characteristic! Apple already cannot deny your app based on your race.

If a restaurant doesn't like your attitude they can ask you to leave. Can't Apple do the same?

> Again, how exactly does that inconvenience you, personally?

Because the smartphone gets worse. Less locked-down, less simple, more complex, more avenues of attack. More expensive to make and maintain.

But why does anyone have to justify why they don't like it? I think 'I don't want to do this' should be reason enough for Apple to not do it. As long as they aren't impacting people who aren't their customers it's their business not yours.

> no one is imposing anything on you

Yes you are you want to impose that Apple change their software to suit you - it's selfish.

You want it your way, I want it my way. Hope can we resolve this? How about we let Apple choose who to market to?

We can't make it a legally protected right to have products designed for people's random whims.

>>I don't think it's a reasonable argument to put people oppressed due to their race with people who want their smartphone to work a bit differently at the same level.

Well, perhaps, my broader point is that the ability of businesses to govern themselves and set their own rules does end somewhere, and that line is decided by societies and can change with time. Things that were acceptable few years ago maybe aren't acceptable now, and vice versa.

>>Because the smartphone gets worse. Less locked-down, less simple, more complex, more avenues of attack

I just don't see that at all, sorry. The experience for 99.99% users won't change at all. Apple could have enabled this last week and you wouldn't have seen any difference at all.

>>We can't make it a legally protected right to have products designed for people's random whims.

Well, but it's not just a random whim, that's the crux of the issue. Once the size of a company and the market it controls gets big enough, it's only natural that they are forced to open to others. It happened to every industry before, why should apple be immune to this? It's the whole epic vs apple discussion again - if two sides want to engage in lawful business contract(sell each other software in this case) why should apple be the arbiter of these transactions? Or rather - why should you, the owner of your smartphone, be forced to use apple as the arbiter.

>>How about we let Apple choose who to market to?

They still can, literally nothing changes on that front. They still market to the same people, they still curate the apps like they used to, they still have 100% control of their app store and the device. The only thing that I would like to change is that ability to say "this is my device apple, I paid for it, let me install software that didn't go through your filter". Again, entirely optional. But we looped back to the first point that we are going to disagree on again - you think that will make the experience worse, I don't think it will.

I think we should agree to part ways on that - the discussion is as always enjoyable, but we might have exhausted the potential here :-)

For what it’s worth, I’m with him, for pretty much the exact same reasons.

You knew what you were getting into when you bought the iPhone. Trying to change it after the fact just seems like trying to profit off other people’s hard work and investments. Screw that.

So....if you buy something, you automatically lose the right to complain about the way it works? Do you apply that rule to the other areas of your life?

Maybe a different example - until very recently, if you bought a BMW, you could only get Apple CarPlay as a subscription, you couldn't just pay upfront to have it. Which is not how this works literally anywhere else, every other brand has it as a one-time unlock and then you have it for life.

Surely, every person buying a brand new BMW knew this, it's clearly advertised. So....should they not have complained about this? After all, they knew what they were buying. But, people have been complaining, and BMW has finally changed it recently. Good riddance I say.

But back to the iphone dillema. The problem with your argument is that this is traditionally not how markets work. If company X wants to sell something to John Smith(let's say an app for their iphone), but cannot without going through some kind of licence holder(Apple in this case) - it's totally a valid question to ask if Apple is stifling competition here or not. In my opinion - they are. Maybe the company X is making a completely legitimate web browser, that John Smith wants to buy and pay money for - but Apple will say nope, you can't buy that, because that would compete with our own product. That's anticompetitive behaviour, and traditionally it does eventually get stopped in court. Like I said in my example several posts ago - volkswagen cannot do anything to stop the company X from selling brake pads to John Smith, yes they fit a car that Volkswagen made but Volkswagen doesn't get to say whether John Smith is allowed to purchase and fit those parts or not. Courts all over the world have decided, many times, that corporations shouldn't have that power. Why do smartphone manufacturers get to keep that power now then? That will change in my opinion, and they will be forced to open up.

Here's the thing: I don't care about BMW. I have a nice situation with Apple holding the keys to the castle, without the horrendous problems that friends of mine have had with Android malware, and you're threatening it. I don't want that.

End of story.

I don't care who makes money and how they do it. I don't care about any wider point. I care that my experience on the phone that I bought for that experience doesn't get worse. I believe that experience would get worse, if there was open-season on the apps that could be installed. Capitalists are going to capitalize. The walled garden comes with restrictions that I signed up for, and I'm happy about that. That was why I signed up in the first place.

So....why are you here at all? Why bother replying to any of these comments, if you're not actually interested in the discussion in the slightest? Like, I get it - you don't care. And? Not caring isn't some new radical stance you know.

We’re not ‘not interested’ we actively don’t want what you’re proposing because we think it’s unjust and harmful and so we’re arguing against it.

But I think I had a very interesting discussion with yourself, you laid out some arguments, I did the same, at the end we disagreed but that's fine, I'm not on some sort of crusade here, it's just a discussion. But then spacedcowboy comes in to basically say "I don't care about any of this or any of your arguments". Ok then, of course they are free to do so, but then why bother commenting? I only continued replying because I hoped we can have explore the topic a bit more but no, spacedcowboy just straight up says he doesn't care about any of it, so I guess that's really, as they put it, "end of story".

I don't care about your arguments because I don't want their expected effects on my life.

I very do much care about the results of your proposals becoming popular, and I don't want what you're proposing to come about. I want it to be known that there are people who oppose your point of view, in case it becomes de-facto the "popular opinion".

Well, then this approach stands against everything I thought HN represented. I have discussed things I very much don't want to happen before here and the "I don't even want to see your side, I just don't want this thing to happen" has never seemed to me like a good tactic - it just doesn't get anyone anywhere. I've been convinced many times to change my mind on HN(and I hope I have changed some minds too) but that's just not possible if the other side isn't engaging in the debate. And if not for the debate, what are we even here for?

shrug not everyone thinks the same way - about topics or meta-topics.

I'm not trying to be nasty or anything - I just vehemently don't want what you're trying to say is a good thing. It's akin to me not wanting my right leg chopped off, and someone trying to persuade me to listen to the arguments on both sides. No thanks; I want both my legs - or in this instance... I want my unsullied app-store.

It would be a negative for me, because I would need to train my parents to never use this other store. Then their friends will get them to use it, because a sketchy app will be in that store that offers free money, or some other scam. My parents will then breach the secure containment of their phone, without really understanding what they're doing.

It would harm Apple, because when users try the third party app store and have problems, they will expect Apple to support it. If Apple doesn't do the support, it tarnishes their brand to that user.

Well but that's like saying that cars shouldn't allow mods, because someone will convince your parents to install aftermarket mods and they will mod their cars and crash and die.

Like, sure, it can happen. But if your parents can be convinced by someone to install a 3rd party store and download something from it, they can be equally easily convinced to go to a dodgy website that will scam them from something else and their magical iPhone won't save them from it. Besides, the whole idea that adult people should be prevented from having choice for their own good is almost offensive to me, like ....don't we believe in personal freedom and choice? Your parents should be able to choose to lock down your their phones(or you can do it for them) but equally, if they want to unlock it - they should be able to.

> get better performance by violating emissions standards

Good. 95% of emissions standards are bullshit.

In any case, the ability to theoretically violate regulations isn't a reason to preclude people from DIY or third party repairs.

Volkswagen should be able to make their cars as difficult to repair or modify as they want. There are so many other options for cars out there, if I care about modifying my car why would I buy a Volkswagen in the first place? I'll just go buy a different car that is more friendly for what I want to do.

Except you'll have the Volkswagon silo, the Ford silo, the GM silo, etc. and they'll all start engaging in monopolistic behavior for servicing because they have a monopoly over repairing your specific brand of car. Call it a tacit collusion monopoly and throw in the sunk cost of a car to make it even worse. If everyone in the market behaves the same, there's no benefit to selling your car and getting another because the service costs won't change.

The best example of this that demonstrates what you'd end up with is the cost of key fob programming. The actual cost of the hardware is trivial but a dealership will charge you $250-500 to program a new one because they have a monopoly on programming the fobs for their brand. Those things should cost $50 max IMO.

The scary thing is the vehicle industry is moving this way for everything and if nothing changes it's eventually going to become extremely difficult / expensive to own a vehicle that's not under warranty. I wouldn't be surprised if they start serializing parts and then sell service plans that increase in price as your car ages. You'll pay forever.

Several modern cars are actually moving in the direction of gaining more and more central control competitively. Last year we had to remove the fuse in the car battery for maintenance, and also because the battery needed a little cleaning - while we were in a remote village with no access to proper internet connection. Little did we know that after re-inserting the same fuse back to the battery, the media system would stop working. The media LCD screen started showing a "Enter the pin to unlock the media system" screen! And we do not have the pin, we were never given a pin. Hence we lost access to the car GPS and media system altogether in an unknown territory. We somehow got back to home and had to book an appointment with the car dealership for the technician to unlock our car media system! He plugged his device and generated the pin that's signed/paired with our specific car and then used it to unlock the media system.

It is indeed scary that even car manufacturers are moving towards central control of every little thing in your car.

The last thing I want to see with all these tech companies following Apple's footsteps in a lot of things, is to see the auto industry becoming like Apple.

I'm sorry, but that's really funny to me - not because I'm laughing at your misfortunes of course, but because of how easily people forget history or are simply unaware of it.

Media systems locking due to the lack of power is not a new problem. I do remember having the exact same problem on my 1994 Passat, where the radio would lock itself and you had to go to the dealer to have it unlocked.

>>And we do not have the pin, we were never given a pin

Literally the same problem, except 25 years later :P Manufacturers almost never issued these special pins to unlock radios.

And like, disconnecting the battery has always been a problem in cars, BMWs, Mercs, Opels, Peugeots, Fiats - I've had them all and they all did something weird if you disconnected the battery - more often than not, a check engine light would pop up and you had to bring it to the dealer to clear it. This is not new.

We were not aware of that and that was definitely a new experience for us. My father owns a car bought a decade ago and we can easily fix and swap any parts we wish without having to worry about getting sign-off from the car "owners" :D I don't see why that would happen, and seeing that as a common practice among other car manufacturers does not make it any less annoying.

Yes, they should be able to, of course. But it's enshrined in law, both EU and US, that other manufactuers can make compatible replacement parts for cars. A manufactuer doesn't get to say what parts you can put in your car after you bought it. You don't have to buy genuiene OEM volkswagen brake pads or clutches - you can buy and install 3rd party ones, and legally Volkswagen cannot forbid you from doing so, and neither can they forbid anyone from manufacturing those replacement parts.

Well it sounds like this law is outdated and needs to align with the times. It should be the same as current smartphone laws.

Uh, no thanks man. The fact things have gotten worse in some aspects of our lives doesn't mean we need to regress the things that are actually working so well you didn't even know it was an issue. If anything this is an argument for the opposite of what you're suggesting.

What I don't get is why you're advocating for your own freedoms to be taken away. Don't carry water for the car companies, if they want more freedoms they can use their money and lobby for it. You don't need to do their job pro bono, leave that up to Citizens United.

Freedom will come from market choice. I fight for the freedom of car companies to make their own choices on how their products can be used. Let them apply their own restrictions. Thats freedom

Like.....that's an incredibly twisted logic. How is it freedom, when a corporation gets to dictate how you use their product after its bought and paid for?? That's not freedom, not in any sense of the word. Corporations should be free to manufacture any car in any way they like. But they shouldn't be able to tell us what to do with our property, don't you see or appreciate having a freedom to do whatever and however you please with items that you have bought?

It's like arguing that you should be able to enter an employment contract that stipulates physical punishment for making mistakes at work - surely, being able to enter such contract is freedom! If you don't like it, go somewhere else, market forces will sort it out! And yet, we as society have decided that no, physical punishment is not acceptable and you cannot waive your right to be free of it. That's freedom. Not what you are saying.

I feel like I _can_ do whatever I please with items I bought. I see the iPhone as an integrated product. There is no boundary between semiconductor, system board, operating system, application runtime, and the 3rd party app ecosystem. It is all one product. Being able to split this apart so I can tinker at the interfaces is not something I demand from something I pay for. Whatever I try to do outside of their expected use of the product is sort of a crapshoot. It says nothing about freedom.

Physical punishment is just a terrible comparison.

This neither lines up with reality (as in there are defined boundaries as devices are made by people on different teams each operating on their own abstractions) or with the reality we want to see.

Part of the trade-off that large companies accept in being allowed to become mega-players in a space is that to make up for the lack of individual power, the government may step in and make the world better for individuals at the expense of the larger companies by, for instance, mandating freedoms: freedom to repair (especially in the case of cars), freedom to re-sell (that's the first-sale doctrine in case you're curious), and so on.

We're talking about individual freedoms.

Again you didn't answer my question. Why are you advocating to have your own rights/freedoms removed for the benefit of the company? Not even the company is asking for that. Why don't you leave advocating for the company to paid advocates of the company?

Let's be super clear, once you purchase the car, it's not their product, it's your car. That's how ownership works. Once it is in your physical lawful possession, it is your to do with as you please. The entire legal system is built around this idea.

For instance, if someone steals my car and wrecks it, does Volkswagen sue the car thief for damages, or do I? If you answered anything other than Volkswagen, it's not "their product" anymore.

I'm not sure they should. One thing is the environmental aspect, we want to avoid unnecessary waste and resource usage since that is one of the things destroying our planet. But another thing is, what happens when the market shifts heavily in a direction that is bad for the consumer?

Sure, you have a lot of good car choices today, but at some point it might be hard to find a car that has your other desirable specs in addition to being repair and modification friendly.

If everyone who bought a car was a well informed with at least a minimum of knowledge of cars, in addition to being able to calculate how repair costs will affect them over the time they own it, then sure. Let the market sort itself out. Since many aren't, let's keep regulations in place to ensure desirable properties.

Heck, imagine what safety features cars would lack if they weren't government mandated requirements...

> What happens when the dictates are not as benevolent?

I buy another phone.

Because there is plenty of competition in the smartphone market and companies willing to take my money.

But I stay with Apple because right now their walled garden is exactly what I am looking for.

The current state of having alternative options in a market could not be counted on.

Think back about a decade ago when there were a number Smartphone platforms. They were backed by (back then) industry heavy weights such as Palm, RIM, and Microsoft. If one didn't like Apple or Google Android, there were plenty of options out there. As the market matures through, consolidation happens, and now we are left with two platforms.

What happens if, tomorrow, both those platforms decided to not play nice? Are the Chinese Android phones with no Google Play Service or the Pinephone really viable and reasonable alternatives?

I'm not sure if you are implying this, but surely we don't want the government to start acting upon imagined, hypothetical future harms that do not currently exist?

If the market becomes less competitive, can't we deal with that issue then?

It wasn't my intention to imply that we need preemptive government intervention.

Rather, I just want point out that, for smartphones, we are well into maturity stage of the industry life cycle, which means it is hard for new companies to enter the market, and where existing companies are focused on generating profit (meaning companies will no longer be playing nice).

It would naive to believe that companies would continue to play nice after they are done building their marketshare.

I think Linux phones like the Phinephone are the way forward. They probably won't gain huge marketshare, but everyone that uses Linux on the desktop (probably half of HN) would enjoy them. The only complaint I have with my Pinephone is that its slow. Maybe the Librem 5's beefy processor would be better.

With respect to point (1) you're neglecting that you actually have to make an investment into the ecosystem. You can't really go somewhere else that easily because you've paid for all the apps you use -- and all the data contained therein. This isn't possible or easy to port, and is therefore forfeit. This could be a few extra hundred or thousands of dollars.

With respect to point (2) nobody's saying you can't continue to shop exclusively in the walled garden. On macOS you can opt for the walled garden via App Store, or download from anywhere else. Being able to download from anywhere else doesn't devalue or detract from thew walled garden. If you like your little nook you can keep it.

the ecosystem investment is decreasing, as most apps are changing to subscription model, at least if the app is available on both platforms.

In this discussion it's important to not reason from a personal preference. If everyone would do that I think you would agree that the world doesn't end well. We need to look at it from a society perspective. And then you will find out that competition in a equal environment with fair rules is much better for a healthy market. Please reconsider your opinion.

I think this is a fair environment though, Apple wants to vertically integrated technology with limited 3rd party API access, devs might hate it, but I think from a business perspective its a total reasonable strategy and from a consumer perspective I like the tight integration they provide. I think you are wrong about installer on their platform being up for grabs being "much better for society" because I don't think you are considering all of the second and third order consequences.

Consider this passes and then the Facebook app (or, probably even worse, Amazon) immediately becomes an app store. At that point what's to stop them from loading and running literally any arbitrary code on the phone's of everyone who updates the facebook app? Same goes for an "utility class" app where consumers have limited choice of competitors. Sure, technically inclined people might figure it out and try to raise a stink, but I guess I don't feel like the public understanding of this is good enough for this not to end badly? Remember the "Facebook Research" VPN[1]? And as a society we would be trading this massive surveillance liability for... the opportunity for a handful of developers to make a killing creating a competing store? an upper middle class group to make more money? Apple to make less money?

Sorry, but we live in a world of Titans, and me, the little guy, can't really stand up to them. At least for the moment I can stand behind Apple.

[1]https://techcrunch.com/2019/01/29/facebook-project-atlas/?gu...

You're arguing about standing up to titans…by living in the shadow of one?

No? I’m arguing that I can’t stand up to Facebook or Google at all, but Apple can.

Plenty of competition? Not on OS. There is iOS and Android. Both in the hands of tech giants.

Yes I know there are other hobbyist ones, but I don't see them at Carphone Warehouse.

I'm not the parent, but...

> You state those preferences as if there's no possible way they could be provided while allowing competition.

In theory, sure. In practice, Apple's closed, walled-garden business model has produced outcomes that I really like. All manner of more open and competition-friendly business models have produced outcomes I find extremely unappealing.

My intuition is that many of the things I like about Apple products come from their unique, closed business model. Is something better theoretically possible? Of course. Do I want to risk screwing up one of the few tech giants whose products I can actually stomach by having the government strong-arm them into using a new business model? Not a chance.

> You have been presented a single option, and find that you like some aspects of the outcome.

No, I have been presented with several options: iOS on an iPhone, Android on phones of all shapes and sizes, and (over the years) various other configurations like webOS, windows phone, and so on.

> Right now you seem to have what you consider a benevolent dictator. What happens when the dictates are not as benevolent?

Then I'll have to switch to a different phone maker.

> You desires matter less to Apple than they do to organizations that actually have to worry about users users leaving more. That's because there's so much you give up if you leave. How long until this is abused? Also, what of those that are already abused because of Apple's power? Where Apple makes arbitrary decisions dictated not by the rules they've put forth but by internal business decisions and the desire to prop up their own offerings?

These are all trade-offs caused by Apple having total control over the system, and I'm ok with it.

> What about a world where Apple was a clearinghouse for what was allowed on the phone, but followed a very clear set of rules that dictated what was allowed and not, and took a well defined fee to review apps, and allowed App stored to be registered and submit apps for review and apply their own additional rules on top? Wouldn't you get most the benefits you like out of that? Wouldn't that provide both competition and provide a similar level of security?

As above, all of this sounds nice in theory. Maybe it would be great. But I am not interested in forcing Apple to make a change, because I like what I have now and the law of unintended consequences will certainly apply.

> > Right now you seem to have what you consider a benevolent dictator. What happens when the dictates are not as benevolent?

> Then I'll have to switch to a different phone maker.

That's great for you, and that you can afford that, but what of the person that's already invested a few thousand dollars into apps and accessories for the iPhone and iOS? Many, possibly every single one of those things won't work anywhere else. And that's not a coincidence, or people making informed choices, Apple in many of those cases has enforced their will on those components or how they are allowed to interact.

If I want something other than iOS can I put it on my iPhone? No. Not because nobody values that, but because Apple has arbitrarily restricted what you can do with the hardware you purchased.

If I want to run iOS on non-Apple hardware. Also a nope.

What if I want to move to Android and use my chargers or peripherals that connect to my iPhone? Not if they use Apple's proprietary lightning connector.

What about any apps you purchased through the App store? Sorry, even if they wanted to many couldn't offer you a tree version even if they wanted to, Apple has started completely anonymizing users and emails and ids for people using their apps. They say it protects users, and it does in some respects, but it also means that Apple is right there between all interactions, enforcing whatever rules they deem prudent.

It's obviously not as simple as just deciding that the next time you buy a new phone, you'll opt for the other one and spend roughly the same amount of money. You are literally at the same time likely obsoleting hundreds or thousands of dollars of investment in a platform. These are forces that work to stifle and manipulate a free market, where people choose the best choice given the attributes of what they are buying. Our current economic system is predicated on the idea that the free market works and should be unfettered unless it's to protect the system or consumers from abuse. Placing barriers to people making informed choices or acting on the choices they would like to make because or arbitrary limitations is hurting us all by extension.

> because I like what I have now

This is ultimately what it comes down to in all these comments. "You want change, but I'm happy and comfortable, so I don't care if this is problematic for others or causes harm or is setting up a problem for down the road, I'll fight you all the way". How is this different than climate change, or civil rights? The scope on those may seem larger, but what we're ultimately discussing is consumer rights, and while not as important, it's still important, and why are the incentives and behaviors any different?

That's not do equate you to specific bad historical behavior, but that mindset is specifically responsible for horrific things in the past. The "I like what I have, so leave me alone" position should always be dissected for what it might unintentionally be allowing. In this case, maybe it's not that bad. But maybe it is pretty bad. That's what we're discussing. I surely won't take that position alone as reasoning for why to relent on my side of an argument though.

Sure, all actions have externalities.

My taking an airplane trip adds carbon that effects everyone's atmosphere. My supporting a company I like (Apple) makes it more difficult for competitors (including more open ones) to succeed.

But unless you are arguing for a totally planned economy where the default is that the government makes all market decisions, our mindsets are the same. i.e. That we should weigh the costs and benefits of government intervention vs leaving the market alone.

If externalities or market failures are very bad (the climate, human rights, etc...), of course I support government intervention. However, government intervention has many costs and far from a perfect track record, so it's not a solution I want to throw at every problem.

I don't think we have a difference in mindset, we just weigh things differently. I don't think the things you've mentioned (app-locking, hardware incompatibility, etc...) are anywhere near bad enough to justify anti-trust action.

The competition is Android.

>What happens when the dictates are not as benevolent?

OP literally answered this question. Buy a different phone.

Except that all your photos are in iCloud, all your messages in iMessage, all your music in iTunes... and all those apps you've bought. "Just buy another phone" is fine if you have no problem throwing away all your data and purchases and start over.

It's not just a phone, it's a whole ecosystem.

Doesn't iTunes provide DRM-free music exports? You could migrate your media to some platform agnostic version like Nextcloud.

Yes, if you buy albums, they are completely DRM-free.

Many people just stream these days though.

> You state those preferences as if there's no possible way they could be provided while allowing competition.

Modifying the software so that it permits third party apps makes the software worse - more complicated, less simple and clear.

So I don't want that.

> but followed a very clear set of rules that dictated what was allowed and not, and took a well defined fee to review apps

What makes you think whoever does this will be more benevolent than Apple, though?

>I see no evidence that this harms consumers at all. Quite the opposite.

Your entire argument is refuted if Apple isn't allowed to abuse it's market position and you're allowed to have "Apple Pay +30% price" "Stripe Payment" "Payment X" - you would quickly see the real value of App Store and Apple Payment processing convenience - that 30% would probably come down to 10% where it provides the convenience value.

If consumers weren't harmed consumer choice would have no effect.

This "users are idiots and they need Apple to tell them what's best for them" is like Stockholm syndrome with Apple fans, it's especially entertaining to hear it so often on a "hacker" newsgroup. Good thing papa Apple decided you can't have that dangerous Fortnite scam tricking you in to using a different payment system, you're better off not wasting time on games anyway - really if you look at it that way they are saving you from bad choices two times - win/win for Apple users I'd say.

It's not Stockholm syndrome, it's familiarity with how things worked on other platform.

Windows/IE literally wasted hundreds of millions of person hours by being leaky, insecure, virus-prone crap. You could - if you chose to - make quite a nice income out of sending out phishing emails on our open email system. Likewise for randomsware, only more so. And so on.

iOS may have other flaws, but worrying that your iPhone is going to be locked by a Bitcoin hacker isn't one of them.

And realistically, users are idiots - at least technically. We've all heard of PC users who click on every random thing and end up with twenty-odd toolbars and almost every possible virus. The only reason phones aren't the same is because security is locked down.

These are consumer devices. They are not hacker devices. If you want an open hacker device, go build one and see if you can persuade people to buy it.

You won't - of course - because in userland locked down security is a feature, not a bug. And users care more about not having to pay a ransom to unlock their own phones than they do about running with root privileges. Not having to think about this is valuable.

Having said all that, there's definitely room to negotiate the costs of all of this, and also to open up selected services that can be proven to be secure. But those costs, the access to useful non-risky APIs for devs, and access for third party service providers, are all different issues to the core validity of the model itself.

>Windows/IE literally wasted hundreds of millions of person hours by being leaky, insecure, virus-prone crap. You could - if you chose to - make quite a nice income out of sending out phishing emails on our open email system. Likewise for randomsware, only more so. And so on.

And so your argument is that Microsoft should have forbidden anyone from using a different browser engine (like Apple does) to make things safer ? What if someone installed Chrome or Firefox - that could have leaks and then you would think less of the platform - right ?

No. That wasn't the argument at all.

It's that people aren't exactly stretching their imaginations to picture their phone ecosystem going to hell. They've all been there before, and have vivid memories of what they don't want.

They are also not crazy to have different preferences for a phone and for a desktop. Just like you have different preferences when selecting a hotel room vs a house.

The argument is nonsense because Apple decisions are not driven by security but are there to ensure they get a cut of every revenue stream on their platform. If this was just about security there would be a way to verify secure 3rd party payment processing methods - I trust Stripe as much as I trust Apple for example. And you wouldn't be forced to offer the same price on other platforms either.

I don't mind personally I see the value they offer - they make products that are better overall for a large majority of consumers and their ecosystem just works for many use cases - it doesn't fit me particularly well but I see the value proposition.

Pretending that these store policies are driven by security is nonsense, those kinds of arguments tick me off.

Who's pretending they are "driven by security"?

Clearly Apple wants to make money. The only argument being made is that some customers choose the walled garden because they want a telephone, not a part-time job keeping the weeds at bay. As you say, that's (a component of) what they are selling, and they do it because it sells (long-term, in their estimation).

The number of customers who chose an iPhone because it only lets them buy apps from Apple is a tiny fraction of the number of people who bought the device as a fashion accessory. What a strange thing to want. It makes little sense to think that Apple is catering to the tiny former group instead of simply extracting as much money as it can out of the latter group.

I don't think it's accurate or fair to ascribe motivations to Apple based on a relevant, yet arbitrary, line in the sand that you chose to draw.

About a decade ago, I got an iPod Touch, on the basis that it would be a portable computer that I could hack around with. Instead I find that it was entirely locked down, and required permission to install any software. Heck, even the developers kit required a $100 license fee, which was outside of my hobbyist budget at the time. For my own device.

The phone ecosystem has already gone to hell, and Apple paved the way there.

You absolutely don't need to pay the $100 license fee to develop for iOS. That fee is just required for distribution

and to receive push notifications...

Push notifications on iOS are delivered through Apple's servers, so that makes sense.

And use certain APIs, like loading fonts…

You certainly are able to load fonts on a self signed app, don't know where you got that information from.

We got a pull request from someone to enable the fonts entitlement, except they couldn't test it because it costed them money to do so. You can see so yourself here: https://help.apple.com/developer-account/#/dev21218dfd6

That is a permission to install a font system wide, not the same thing

No, it isn't. To be able to access certain user-provided fonts, you need that entitlement.

If Microsoft made the same decisions as Apple did with the XP release (including always running apps in a sandbox), then yes, you wouldn't have to worry about malware at all on Windows. Instead, we have a billion dollar antivirus industry.

Apple is hardly free of malware.

I haven't heard of any iOS worms.

Got any sources on iOS-specific, in-the-wild malware?

https://blog.malwarebytes.com/mac/2019/08/unprecedented-new-....

https://www.cnet.com/news/google-researcher-demonstrates-iph...

> Because of this, any device running iOS 12.1.4 is not only immune to these particular attacks, but it can’t be infected anymore either, due to the reboot when installing 12.1.4 (or later).

iOS certainly has malware and vulnerabilities, like any software, but they end up patched pretty quickly. It's definitely not the malware landscape we had on Windows 2000-2015 (arguably when Windows Defender got good).

> iOS may have other flaws, but worrying that your iPhone is going to be locked by a Bitcoin hacker isn't one of them.

iOS exploits are cheaper than Android exploits because iOS exploits are so plentiful[1][2].

[1] https://www.theregister.com/2020/05/14/zerodium_ios_flaws/

[2] http://zerodium.com/program.html

>Windows/IE

I keep having Apple users explain that Catalina is better than Windows 95. This seems in a similar vein.

> Windows/IE literally wasted hundreds of millions of person hours by being leaky, insecure, virus-prone crap

How do you explain that I've been using mac os for decades, I am able to install third party software, and I have not run into any of the issues you are describing?

> iOS may have other flaws, but worrying that your iPhone is going to be locked by a Bitcoin hacker isn't one of them.

This is enforced by the platform sandbox, not the App Store. They are entirely separate things.

An alternate App Store would operate outside the sandbox though, right?

Otherwise, the alternate App Store would be relegated to installing apps within its own sandbox. And people would continue to howl about it.

The app could just hand off installation to the privileged system daemon that can do that part for it.

See Android, seriously.

> you would quickly see the real value of App Store and Apple Payment processing convenience - that 30% would probably come down to 10% where it provides the convenience value.

That might be good for developers but it does not necessarily also imply that consumers are harmed. You assume that if a store charged a lower rate that the savings would be passed onto the consumer, but this does not reflect the real world where developers might simply choose to pocket the difference instead.

As an example, the Epic Games Store is charging $59.99 for the new release of Cyberpunk 2077. What's the cost on Steam? Also $59.99.

In that case everyone would keep using Apple to pay if it actually provided convince/value.

"I like that my mom can install apps and not worry about them spying on her."

Until very recently (ios 13/14) apps did exactly this. There are arguments for the walled garden in terms of ensuring applications are built, signed, and distributed safely but developers (e.g. Facebook, etc) absolutely abused the system APIs to spy on users and collect data they had no right to.

Even with the newer protections, apps randomly want to access my contacts or local network or location. The average user (like my mom and dad) are most likely just gonna click through those.

I'm not arguing for ios/android here but we should be factual. I will say I like the walled garden for other reasons, such as a consistent payment gateway, etc.

This is true, but it’s worth nothing that the protections are improving, and without the walled garden that wouldn’t be possible.

> without the walled garden that wouldn’t be possible

Aren't many of these protections at the OS level? Certainly apps installed from 3rd party App stores on Android still have to use the same permissions system/etc as those coming from the Google Store.

Some are at the OS level, but many are not.

For example straight up fraud and phishing, or botnets, or Apps that abuse permissions.

Many of these have no technical countermeasures and have to either be rejected at review time, or removed when discovered.

User facing monitoring is a huge help here. I removed an application that hijacked the lock screen of a phone with Android 4 on it (Android only had the requirement that applications don't hijack the lock screen from the App Store for Android 5 and up IIRC). This was because of the simple monitoring that was built into Android through developer options which was simple to activate.

Far more could be done with more sophisticated user controlled monitoring tools, which could say monitor the network traffic, application accesses to any information on the device etc. No reason it cannot be done, and they may be there already.

Also device does not need to have their applications mandatorily locked to an App Store to get the benefits. Optional use of the 'official' app store is fine too, which is what isn't there on iOS. You can choose to just get your applications through the 'official' app store. Someone else not getting their applications through the 'official' app store does not magically put those applications on your device, and thus does not decrease the security you may get from the app store for you.

How can ‘user facing monitoring’ help a non tech savvy person tell the difference between a fraudulent app that and a real one that otherwise looks the same?

As as for ‘you can just choose the official store’ - it’s not as simple as that. There will be a giant campaign to get people to install alternative stores because the official one is evil and locked down.

People will do so without having the ability to tell which alternative stores are legitimate and which are not.

That can't be true, privacy protection is only possible in a walled garden? So I can't get privacy on Linux? Even on Tails?

Can my non English fluent non computer literate parents get privacy on Linux, with an insatiable need to click on every link they see in WhatsApp?

Yes, and out of the box, too.

I totally agree. We as techies /developers see problems from our perspective (too high of a cut, arbitrarily limiting what apps can be distributed, no third-party payment processing etc). And those are legit concerns.

But in a typical “customer harm” perspective I think it’s very hard to make a case.

Apps aren’t really that more expensive on iOS nor is the catalog smaller.

However much we want a freer iOS experience, competing App Stores will just make iOS like modern gaming with a crappy custom App Store for each vendor. It would be more reasonable to have easier side loading for enthusiast or stuff Apple doesn’t want in its store.

It is very easy to make a case actually, the equivalent would be no music besides iTunes store (no spotify). Same thing for games (no epic store, no steam, no GOG etc). Just because Apple provides a good experience doesn't give them the right to disallow competition. Don't fall into Stockholm syndrome.

> no epic store, no steam, no GOG etc

The current situation sucks, but it's worth mentioning that this alternative sucks equally as well. Specifically, games from these distributors often install dodgy kernel drivers rendering computers useless for purposes other than gaming for anyone who are conscious about security and privacy.

Furthermore, advertising, entertainment, and gaming industries are known to be hostile towards users when they're given control over user devices. They would most certainly force users onto their own app stores when given the chance and proceed to install whatever invasive piece of software they seem fit.

So while I'd love to have an easy way to install community-run app stores for free and open source software, I'd be wary of any attempts by user-hostile industries to create their own app store. I'd really like to be proven wrong, but it seems we currently have a choice between two evils.

> no music besides iTunes store (no spotify)

FYI you can install the Spotify app from the App Store at https://apps.apple.com/us/app/spotify-music-and-podcasts/id3...

Microsoft could block dodgy kernel drivers while still allowing game stores ... These are not inherently related.

I think OP is aware that competing music apps are allowed. They're making an analogy about banning competing app stores, just because itunes is good doesn't mean we don't want competition ... the same concept applies.

Dodgy kernel drivers are just one example of user hostile software.

Given the past and current track record of the advertising, entertainment, and gaming industries, would you really want to be forced to install an app store run by any of them?

If this was purely about getting something like F-Droid into iDevices or side loading for power users, it would be very beneficial for users. Apple deserves some of the negativity for not letting that happen.

However, known user hostile players trying to have a go at people's personal devices under the guise of competition is something that we as consumers should be equally wary of. Because in the end, we won't be given much choice. Monopolies are not something exclusive to Apple, and big players will use their own monopolistic power to coerce users to install their privacy invading app store.

It's a pretty excellent example precisely because the operating system typically already has controls over this behavior (installing kernel drivers..)

> However, known user hostile players trying to have a go at people's personal devices under the guise of competition is something that we as consumers should be equally wary of.

Is epic user hostile? Other than offering temporarily exclusive applications their store does not seem hostile ...

> Because in the end, we won't be given much choice. Monopolies are not something exclusive to Apple, and big players will use their own monopolistic power to coerce users to install their privacy invading app store.

Defeating hypothetical monopolistic practices by denying user choice and persisting an existing monopolistic practice sure is a take.

> Is epic user hostile?

Let's see an example of dodgy kernel drivers. How about Easy Anti-Cheat? Go to their page at https://www.easy.ac/en-us/. Guess who develops it?

> hypothetical monopolistic practices

Hypothetical monopolistic practices really? Because I vividly recall Facebook skirting App Store security policies to make users install a privacy invading VPN app, which they also used to gather data on competitors[1]. But I'm sure that's fine because people have alternatives to Facebook. Or perhaps not[2].

[1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15007454

[2]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25363366

> Let's see an example of dodgy kernel drivers. How about Easy Anti-Cheat? Go to their page at https://www.easy.ac/en-us/. Guess who develops it?

Their store does not install or require this. Specific applications require it for online play (and generally only for online play...)

Microsoft does not ban this behavior on any storefront, AFAIK. Having a single storefront would not change this.

> Hypothetical monopolistic practices really? Because I vividly Facebook skirting App Store security policies to make users install a privacy invading VPN app, which they also used to gather data on competitors[1].

Amusingly this occurred under the current iOS app restrictions, which clearly didn't prevent this.

An argument could be made for certain high-risk extension point access (such as VPN) could be limited independently of general apps, but the fact that there's a bad VPN app is a silly excuse for restricting the install of simple applications.

The app sandbox should provide plenty of protection, and if the user opts to give apps permissions, that's on their choice. I really don't think users are going to install an app store that requires the usage of a sketchy VPN app ...

If this were the case, surely it would exist already on android :-)

> But I'm sure that's fine because people have alternatives to Facebook. Or perhaps not[2].

[2]: is exactly why we don't need to leave Apple's monopoly in place to "defeat other monopolies" ... we have other tools for that. Let users (and their representatives etc.) decide.

> Their store does not install or require this.

How does this matter? You've shown doubts that epic engages in user hostile behavior. I've shown you evidence. It shows that they can't be trusted with the security and privacy of their customer's devices.

> Amusingly this occurred under the current iOS app restrictions, which clearly didn't prevent this.

Amusingly the app wouldn't have been pulled if it was Facebook running the App Store. It likely wouldn't have made the headlines either because it would be common practice. This is the same Facebook, along with Google, that abused enterprise certificates to skirt the app review process itself[1].

> The app sandbox should provide plenty of protection, and if the user opts to give apps permissions, that's on their choice.

You'd be amazed at the lengths some users went through to install Google and Facebook's sketchy "research" app[1].

But to get back to the point, all I'm saying boils down to two things:

- Apple should enable FOSS communities to run an app store and also make it easy for power users to side load apps

- Consumers should be extremely cautious of big players demanding more access to their personal devices

Is this such a silly position to take?

[1]: https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2019/02/google-screenwise-unwi...

> Apps aren’t really that more expensive on iOS

Some are. [0] And because of the 30% cut many popular services simply aren't available through their iOS apps.

[0] https://www.wsj.com/articles/how-app-makers-break-their-apps...

So if you really want that level of centralization then at the very least can't we agree that Apple should reduce it's fee (30% of ALL revenue for some basic binary hosting and payment processing?) and be far less restrictive in it's decisions of what is allowed and what isn't (god forbid we have xcloud on iOS! the horror!)?

Let’s assume the validation process takes $300 for each pass (each version, and initial release, has a consultant for 1/2 day, assuming the consultant takes that time to analyse code and has tools ready, and that 1/2 includes the occasional PR problem and the occasional escalation process). Given an app has an average of 30 versions, it costs Apple 9000$ per app, excluding the Marketplace hosting which must be minor compared to this.

That means the breakeven for the 30% fee is at 27000 sales for a $3 app _in average_, but many apps make no sales, many others are free, many are cheaper than $3.

So the 30% fee is effectively the bigger apps paying so the smaller apps can exist, and so a market can exist, with low-cost apps, which makes it interesting for customers to come. Therefore I don’t personally think the 30% cut is unfair; just that « the bigger paying for the smaller » is a debatable choice (which is the same idea as the bigger taxpayers paying for the poorest).

Half a day? You're being exceedingly generous. App reviewers usually spend something like 5-10 minutes on any given app, at that.

Why would letting another app store be installable on an iphone make your mom not able to just use App Store the same way she does it now? It’s simply not an either or question. It could be hidden the same way as developer options are in Android so your mon - with all due respect - will never accidentally enable side-loading, while I can actually use my phone for whatever I want.

> It could be hidden the same way as developer options

If checking a box buried three screens deep in Settings is all it takes to play Fortnite with your friends again, that box is going to get checked. And once it does, all the privacy and security of iOS devices goes out the window.

The same could be said about 3rd party car mechanics that have MUCH HIGHER stakes (your life behind the wheel), yet it is illegal for car manufacturers to ban someone else from fixing your car. But Apple zealots act like a ending a monopoly on app installation will ruin everything.

If the warning box says THIS IS A BIG SECURITY RISK and you click anyway it's your own choice, but a choice given in every single product and market created by man. A stupid phone is not where you draw the line and give it up.

Your analogy would apply if 3rd party car mechanics had a history of installing GPS trackers and hidden microphones.

We decided to punish people criminally who betray our trust in that way in physical space, and that usually works well enough that we can have enough of a trust-based society that we can let someone else have unsupervised access to our car for short periods of time.

For a variety of reasons, that trust has completely broken down with cell carriers and app developers. So we have to resort to a feudal system in which we rely on the local Lord to protect our interests.

I hate it too, but I need someone looking out for my privacy and the security of my mobile device. Apple is the best I can find.

The most serious breaches of privacy have been made by governments with backdoors and not some script kiddies... Either way, nothing will be taken away from you if another app store is available. Just continue using the Apple app store as you did before. You're taking away the choice of others just because you feel yours is best.

Apple doesn't have a monopoly.

You're free not to buy an iPhone. Most people don't.

Apple has the majority of the mobile OS market in the US, and more than 3x the App Store revenue that the Play Store has.

But that doesn't matter when it comes to antitrust laws[1]:

> Courts do not require a literal monopoly before applying rules for single firm conduct; that term is used as shorthand for a firm with significant and durable market power — that is, the long term ability to raise price or exclude competitors. That is how that term is used here: a "monopolist" is a firm with significant and durable market power.

[1] https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/competition-guidance/guide-a...

It does have a monopoly on third-party software running on Apple devices.

There are other possible approaches that could be taken - e.g. a full bootloader wipe required, per-app permissions that must be allowed, federated third party app stores, parental controls, etc.

Although at the end of the day people will still sometimes self-XSS themselves with the browser developer console or get phished etc.

Human error/ignorance is always a possible issue, and I don't think we should restrict everyone else for it. Cars and knives are still allowed in the world.

> I see no evidence that this harms consumers at all. Quite the opposite.

Game streaming services do not exist on iOS. This is a harm.

You cannot sign up for Netlifx on iOS. This is a harm.

You can't install GPL software, or software with LGPL dependencies, on iOS devices because of the App Store's policy. Apple will even remove apps from their store if they think that they contain GPL or LGPL code.

That's harm, too.

Game streaming services do exist on iOS via the web browser.

You can signup for Netflix on iOS via the web browser.

Yet, you cannot have a link to Netflix or Spotify from their app to their own website as you could subscribe on it.

And the browser is limited to whatever Apple allows. If it doesn't support some web API that has a native equivalent, you're out of luck. There are many of those.

These are all concessions to the user experience that harm both consumers and developers.

You Download the Netflix App and it Doesn't Work if you don't already have an account.

> I see no evidence that this harms consumers at all. Quite the opposite.

When there is no competition the prices are higher. That is one way the consumers are harmed.

> I like the walled garden and have no interest in it going away. I like that my mom can install apps and not worry about them spying on her.

And you can have your walled garden and your mom can still install apps without worrying if they are spaying on them. Just use apples app store, simple as that. This is a non issue.

> I like that developers aren’t allowed to use their own payment processors. I don’t want to input my credit card into your black box payment system that might or might not charge me correctly.

You still have the option of using the apples app store. Again, a non issue for you.

> You still have the option of using the apples app store. Again, a non issue for you.

Except apps GP uses will leave the official App Store in favor of the jenky "type in your credit card to each individual app" app store. So it actually is in GP's favor for there not to be an option.

Not saying that is justification, but let's not just pretend it's all roses.

> Except apps GP uses will leave the official App Store in favor of the jenky "type in your credit card to each individual app" app store.

This is an assumption. A weird assumption, at that. Apps wouldn't tarnish their brands by being distributed on badly implemented stores, in the same way you don't see apps worth using being advertised on porn sites or 4chan.

> apps GP uses will leave the official App Store

Couldn't Apple offer a reasonable compromise that they only allow competing App Stores on their phones if those App Stores don't allow exclusive apps? App stores would still be able to compete on prices and payment methods.

I suppose that all apps would still have to be approved by Apple, though, otherwise an app creator could just hide something that Apple objects to in their app somewhere, causing it to be disallowed from Apple's App Store but allowed in third party ones.

> Couldn't Apple offer a reasonable compromise that they only allow competing App Stores on their phones if those App Stores don't allow exclusive apps?

This would not be a reasonable compromise, as one of the primary reasons for wanting competing app stores is because of Apple's insane overreach in trying to control what you are and aren't allowed to run on your own phone.

When I last had an iPhone, I wanted to install a heavy computing application that I had previously used on Android. I found out from the developers of that application that they had been rejected from the App Store because their app used too much CPU power. Apparently you're meant to just use the phone for decoration?

Google has some similarly nonsense policies (good luck finding a good adblocker on the Play Store), but at least it takes all of five seconds to circumvent that. Apple allowing competing app stores while still having complete control over the content available on them does very little to solve the problems that their monopoly causes.

> When there is no competition the prices are higher. That is one way the consumers are harmed.

They can also be lower (a monopsony), because the middleman in a two sided market can extract value from the provider and deliver it to the consumer. This is how universal health care, Amazon, etc work.

> Just use apples app store, simple as that. This is a non issue.

And how do you install other App Stores? Just visit epicgames.com/ios, see a popup asking "do you want to install this app store" and click "confirm"? That's no different than the exact thing that caused Windows to be known to need an antivirus (at least, until Windows Defender and smartscreen became good enough for 'common sense' users). Anything more is going to be met with criticism for 'too much of a barrier to install' for competing app stores.

Apps in iOS are sandboxed anyway so spyware/virus concerns are less of an issue just due to the platform itself.

But I agree with the other posters: literally making it impossible for me to willingly do something with my own device is not a feature.

There are other ways to help prevent payment issues or privacy concerns - one of which is just sticking to the App Store (if it really is that valuable then won't the market decide?) - the other of which is requiring hoops to jump through like Google does with third-party applications on Android. Hell - look at Gatekeeper on macOS.

> Apps in iOS are sandboxed anyway so spyware/virus concerns are less of an issue just due to the platform itself.

On iOS, certain API restrictions are enforced by the app review process.

Not to mention some behavioral restrictions are purely enforced by the threat of being banned from the app store.

For example, apps could[1] spam you 10x a day with 3rd party advertising push notifications, but that is banned by app store policy, not by any technical limitation of the platform.

[1] For awhile this was a serious problem on Android until Google clamped down on it, again, using store policy not technical restrictions.

Fair point, but I have to believe Apple could come up with technical solutions to these issues. Or not - in which case we end up with a world not that unlike macOS. Which isn't that bad in my opinion. I'd still rather have that option than being told I can't do what I want with my own hardware.

MacOS was never a large enough target for malware and adware.

Think pre-SP2 Windows XP. Think the JRE updater installing the Ask Jeeves toolbar. (Or Chrome, that was slimy....)

Drive by app installs initiated from Safari on iOS would be Bonzai Buddy all over again.

Right now if a handful of misbehaving apps makes it past the app store review process, it is in the news.

What happens if that review store process is no longer there? How many alternative keyboards will be going around stealing credentials? How many apps spamming ads 24/7?

> On iOS, certain API restrictions are enforced by the app review process.

Notarization for apps on macOS already checks for private API usage[1] even if the apps aren't distributed on the Mac App Store.

[1] https://www.waynedixon.com/2019/05/16/new-notarization-requi...

I think those checks are primarily for security-related private APIs, not the ones that you would normally get when submitting to the iOS and macOS App Stores.

I hear you but there is actual customer harm. There are obviously silly UX things that happen in Apple world.

Example: you cannot buy Kindle books in the Kindle app as they would be subject to 30% fees. You have to go to the web browser to buy the books. Apple inserting itself into this sort of marketplace transaction is highly questionable.

The google play store offers the same level of protections around their internal payment platform and you can confidently download apps from verified developers.

Not only do you have to go to a web browser to buy the books, you can't tell people to use a web browser! This kind of muzzling is frankly absurd–if Apple is proud of the App Store rules, then why can't developers tell their users about them?

> I see no evidence that this harms consumers at all. Quite the opposite.

You don't have to, others, like me, do. I have been harmed by the App stores capricious rules. You can have the walled garden and still preserve my ability to have apps I want.

You can have a walled garden and at the same time have an exit to that garden. Apple should have their appstore with all their security measures for payment but they shouldn't prevent a third party from making an app and offering it through side loading.

Most of people might still want to use the appstore because it has the reputation of being safe. I don't see how the garden and freedom are mutually exclusive. You just tell your mom to stay in the garden and this is what most non technical people usually do on android.

> I see no evidence that this harms consumers at all. Quite the opposite.

You don't see how a lack of competition keeps prices unfairly high?

> I like the walled garden and have no interest in it going away

Competition does not mean anyone is taking your app store from you.

> I like that my mom can install apps and not worry about them spying on her.

Well one, they do, but two, no one is taking your mom's app store away.

> I don’t want to input my credit card into your black box payment system that might or might not charge me correctly.

No one is suggesting you do this?

> I see that it does harm developers, but that’s a different conversation entirely.

It harms everyone.

> If you want to install whatever apps you want, buy an android phone! And have fun while their bloat ware and preinstalled crap spams you with notifications and scams you.

I want to install whatever applications I'd like on the computer system I paid a thousand dollars for.

And I guess you didn't notice the un-removable iPhone apps on your phone when you bought it? Or is that some special kind of fancy bloatware?

>I see that it does harm developers, but that’s a different conversation entirely.

This is generally the conversation that's happening here. People talking about competition aren't talking about it as it relates to the quality of the product, they're talking about it from an economic perspective.

> I like the walled garden and have no interest in it going away. I like that my mom can install apps and not worry about them spying on her.

This is super ironic given how extensively Apple is spying on their customers. I guess you consider it OK too since it's Apple?

And btw, Apple's policy absolutely doesn't prevent spying: Google Chrome is still spying her your browsing habits, Gmail is reading her emails, Whatsapp has all her contact information (including identity and phone numbers of non-consenting friends of her), etc.

Apple policy is about malware, not user privacy.

This again. Think about users in totalitarian countries who can't use the apps they need because Apple subserviently removed those apps from that country's section of appstore. It is widely known that Apple complies with such requests by local authorities - there is no Signal in China's AppStore.

Now, if you like your walled garden, ok, whatever, some people love their chains, but why do you feel entitled to impose the same slavish conditions on everyone else?

Do you believe that all users should be subjected to policies that are best for your mom?

What would be wrong with a buried setting that you could flip, allowing one to install non-App Store apps?

"And have fun while their bloat ware and preinstalled crap ..."

No such crap on this Pixel device I'm using.

Fortunately, even if competing app stores were allowed in the iphone, nobody is forcing you to use them.

All you have to do is only use the apple app store.

This way, everyone wins! You can use the apple app store, and other people can use other app stores.

Great that you represent all consumers. I guess the debate's over then.

Your mom can continue to use the apple store in that case

> I like that my mom can install apps and not worry about them spying on her.

You really think Apple not doing that?

Yes, I really think Apple is not (at least nowhere near the same degree as their competition). That's not how they make money.

Apple spies more than its competition. The competition at least allows you to turn their spying off. There is no such option on Apple devices.

Do you want to get your location without Apple also getting your location? You can't. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25355587

Do you want to install an app on your device without telling Apple? You can't.

Do you want to build apps for your own device and not have to reinstall them weekly without telling Apple your banking details? Tough luck.

Platforms that don't give users an escape hatch to run their own software have nothing to stop them from abusing their users. They will abuse their users' privacy just as much as they will abuse their users' wallets.

wait until you hear about Apple Ads then.

Didn’t iAds fail because they weren’t invasive enough?

Look, you make a ton of valid points. If you like the walled garden, enjoy it.

Thing is, Apple and Google both offer the exact same benefits. They approve what gets published, they listen to complaints, they control some aspects of how you are allowed to code for their platforms. They lock you into their payment processor and they take a cut.

The difference is that if I want out of that comfy, protected walled garden, I have to do different things to get out.

On Android, I go to my security settings, enable third party sources, and then download alternative app store APKs from sites like Amazon and F-Droid. The garden isn't a jail.

On iOS, I either have to sideload software via my lighting cable in developer mode, or "jailbreak" (the garden is a jail) the operating system using third party hacks allowing me to install from new sources.

And sure, rooting Android or iOS is typically a hacky chore, but at least the Android rooting tool is published by Google.

There's a big difference between

* rooting the phone with an exploit

* rooting the phone with a modified boot image from original firmware (is this even possible any more?)

* installing a new ROM that allows root access

I think if I rooted my Note 9 it would permanently mark the phone as having been "tampered with", and at least on a 3rd party ROM I'd lose Samsung/Google Pay

One might say that the fact that Android offers this alternative, means Apple shouldn’t be forced to provide it.

> I see no evidence that this harms consumers at all. Quite the opposite.

Then you are blindfolded. Many companies refuse to build for ios or charge more because of it. This isn't theory, it's fact supported by those companies and even the smallest amount of applied reason.

> I like the walled garden and have no interest in it going away. I like that my mom can install apps and not worry about them spying on her.

Apple is spying on you. Perhaps you missed the bit where they phone home with every app that you open, thereby fingerprinting and tracking you.

> I like that developers aren’t allowed to use their own payment processors. I don’t want to input my credit card into your black box payment system that might or might not charge me correctly.

This is a nice feature, but consumer choice exists. don't like it, don't use apps that require a different payment processor.

> I see that it does harm developers, but that’s a different conversation entirely.

It's really not. If the people making the apps lose, that's a problem.

> If you want to install whatever apps you want, buy an android phone! And have fun while their bloat ware and preinstalled crap spams you with notifications and scams you.

No thanks, I like my apple integrations but I also want to install what I want.

It's not really significant that Apple was able to halve their fees, because the segment of developers for which the halving applies is responsible for a minimal amount of actual profit.

> The fact they were able to quickly halve their fee due to public sentiment and some lawmakers sniffing around means that competition was not working to even that out to costs plus some profit already

Apple's scheme was basically a flat tax but clearly they determined they could make it progressive with minimal effects on revenue. They could go even further if they wanted to: since the top 98% of apps supposedly account for 95% of revenue, Apple could basically eliminate fees entirely for the bottom 98% without greatly affecting their bottom line.

It's somewhat like how 96% of the US income tax is paid by the top 50% of taxpayers. So income tax for the lower 50% could be reduced drastically with minimal effects on revenue. A gradual/progressive tax scheme is more desirable than a strict step function to avoid weird paradoxes where your net income can go down even as your gross income increases (which is a problem with the Apple scheme.)

Regardless, having some entry fee (e.g. $99 developer membership) is probably helpful for reducing spam apps.

Have you ever published an app to Android? That is madness - there are like 7 stores not counting official Google Play. Each has their own APIs, SDKs etc. All you do for weeks is basically update and build apks for each store, they get rejected or you find a bug later and again.

From the development point of view 1 store at saves a huge amount of time.

I am all for open platform, low fees etc. But I am against a billion store apps.

And why would consumers want 10 store apps? And then search the app you want in each of them? I really doubt that.

Also how many of other stores have resources to check and validate each app? Probably none.

We should push Apple to treat all developers equally, lower fees, etc, but creating a bunch of app stores is not the way. Just integrate all your wishes in the one.

You are using an argument for not wanting to publish to more than one store, to defend a position of not wanting there to be more than one store.

Simply because you don't want to use it doesn't mean it shouldn't exist. If you don't want to publish anywhere except Play, don't.

If there is enough incentive, OSS devs would create some libraries with common interface across stores.. but there is no incentive, as android's main store is google's.