That is your opinion. There is no merit in this subjective standpoint from a legal perspective unless you're willing to share the metric by which you arrived at this judgement.

> the fast/cheap/good thing (while for starters not being some actual "law"), is meant to apply to engineering and not market dynamics

That's exactly the context in which I mention it. The iPhone, operating system and app store are _huge_ engineering projects.

> I guess we don't need free markets for price signals at all!

I don't know what point you're making with this. We're in a thread literally discussing removing a freedom from Apple.

>> I also wish there was an alternative to the AppStore to catch cases that didn't meet that strict bar

Setting aside the obvious difference, how is this different than outlawing murder, except for one day of the year or in one city? Attention will suddenly be directed towards the less stringent alternative. You're just opening up the gates for a race to the bottom, something we've already had enough of IMO (and FWIW, I agree with you here: "I wish the AppStore was MUCH pickier about the apps it let in").

Remember all the "malware cleaners" that install viruses on Windows machines? Yeah, we're gonna get that on iOS. "But we already have that/similar" Yeah, it's gonna get worse, not better.

Your entire second quote is invalidated as well by your suggestion for alternatives. Nobody that the app store is meant to protect is going to use the curated store because they will be tricked/coerced into using the alternatives where people with less scruples can exercise more control.

You brought up goodness with fast/good/cheap! And you certainly provided zero "metrics" in defense of its goodness, I at least provided my perspective as a customer with a concrete issue. I literally provided a specific metric, search quality, immediately following the sentence. You OTOH just take it as a given that the store is "good," unless your implication was that the AppStore is "fast and cheap but not good," but I doubt that's the point you were trying to make.

> I don't know what point you're making with this. We're in a thread literally discussing removing a freedom from Apple.

The point is you believe that Apple can ahead-of-time know the cheapest price for something. You posit that a competitor on the iPhone would be incapable of arriving at a lower price. And for the record, if you read my comments, I never say that Apple should be forced to allow this. I think they should do this because it would be better for them and for me the customer. I think they are silly to continue putting themselves in the ire of so many groups by being so obstinate about this product, but even separate from that, it would give them fantastic arguments in their relationships with developers: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26796845

> Setting aside the obvious difference, how is this different than outlawing murder, except for one day of the year or in one city? Attention will suddenly be directed towards the less stringent alternative. You're just opening up the gates for a race to the bottom, something we've already had enough of IMO (and FWIW, I agree with you here: "I wish the AppStore was MUCH pickier about the apps it let in").

Yes, setting aside the obvious difference. I have provided a clear example. HKMap.live is an app that Apple took down to appease China. The AppStore creates a single point of failure for nations to target and cut off. Most people here think it was pretty shitty to remove that app while the citizens of Hong Kong were fighting for their voice. Maybe in your eyes that's the exact same thing as "The Purge" (I honestly can't believe this is where this conversation has devolved), but it isn't for me.

Here is a simpler example: Tor isn't on the Mac AppStore, but guess what, I can still get it on my Mac. And that's a good thing. I don't have the needs of a journalist abroad, but I'm glad they can safely surf the net even though I don't have those worries. I can understand why Apple doesn't want that front and center on the AppStore to put a target on their backs from countries like China. See, there's actually a lot of stuff that doesn't cleanly fall between good and "murder level bad". Hell, even just allowing FireFox with its own rendering engine is a clear example of a thing that most people don't think is akin to allowing porn onto the store, but that Apple nevertheless does not want on the store.

I frequently acknowledge that I probably would not use side-loading. I in fact would be someone that wants stricter rules on the store. I would actually like for Apple to boot every loot-box based game off the store for example. As far as I'm concerned, it's gambling that targets children. But I accept that that opinion is not shared by everyone, and thus I think we should have a system that allows for strict rules without also having them necessarily affect every single person, with the sole decision-maker being Tim Cook.

The other just ridiculously obvious difference is that I can opt-out of side-loading. No one is saying that every iPhone user should have to be forced to download every shady app on Earth from every second-tier AppStore. That's not the way it is on the Mac. It's so weird that you bring up Windows as the alternative to iOS rather than... the Mac, which seems like a much more obvious comparison point. I wonder if that's because the situation on the Mac isn't a catastrophic hellscape and thus doesn't serve sensationalist fear mongering.

As I said in that comment, side-loading would not have to be on by default, or even easily turned on. It could also warn you on every single app install that doesn't go through the AppStore (which would be awesome, but Apple obviously can't do this on their own AppStore because it goes against their narrative of the safety of the AppStore. Unfortunate, because if they did, it might actually help prevent a lot of these spam subscriptions. At least with out-of-the-AppStore downloads they could put super scary warnings every single time). In fact, it could even be disallowed with parental controls. There are a lot of obvious options in between "only the AppStore" and "MadMax dystopia where anything goes."

China has the great firewall. I'm not an expert on it, but I assume whether Apple allows alternative app stores is entirely beside the point of whether people in HK would be able to download and use a networked app.

>> how is this different than $ACTIVITY, except for one day of the year or in one city? Attention will suddenly be directed towards the less stringent alternative

> I have provided a clear example. HKMap.live

You have not provided an argument as to how more attention, both positive and negative, wouldn't suddenly be paid to the alternative. If Apple allowed alternative apps stores, China could start applying pressure to them. Or, as I previously mentioned, firewall them. Apple, a $Trillion company, caved, why wouldn't a lesser organization?

> It's so weird that you bring up Windows as the alternative to iOS rather than... the Mac

Because Windows was the previous platform that most tech-unsavvy people used, and it was a cesspool of malware. My relatives didn't go from Windows machines to Macs or Androids, they went from Windows machines to iPads. It's those people I have in mind when I make these arguments as to the value of an app store. If there are relevant market metrics that show that I am wrong here, I'm glad to see them. I'm just speaking from personal experience: people who use iOS and Macs don't come to me with the same kinds of problems as Windows users (which I also struggled with for years). Therefore I have a strong interest in not letting iOS become something like Windows.

I also still think that macOS is a more secure OS by design vs Windows, so that may be another reason I'm picking on Windows. And people are constantly complaining about that, too, how their computing platforms are being locked down and will soon be devoid of any freedoms. To me it always sounds like the argument is coming from a place where they see some nefarious villain twirling his moustache and devising schemes to keep the masses in the grip of control. I see an organization of many many humans making engineering tradeoffs to create what are, IMO, extremely impressive devices and systems.

Let me be very clear about one thing:

> Maybe in your eyes that's the exact same thing as "The Purge"

> there's actually a lot of stuff that doesn't cleanly fall between good and "murder level bad"

> the situation on the Mac isn't a catastrophic hellscape and thus doesn't serve sensationalist fear mongering

> There are a lot of obvious options in between "only the AppStore" and "MadMax dystopia where anything goes."

I was very clear that I wasn't comparing the situation with the app store to actual literal murder, but that comparison weaves throughout most of your reply. My point was entirely about the implementation and not at all about the regulated activity.

>> "Ignoring the obvious difference"

I'd be willing to give you the benefit of the doubt that maybe the difference wasn't obvious to you, if you hadn't sarcastically quoted that exact phrase in your responses.

The HKMap.live situation happened before the Chinese Firewall was in place in Hong Kong (2019), so that's really not an excuse. Regardless, the great firewall doesn't necessarily prevent person-to-person sharing of an app for instance. Ultimately, you should absolutely put the ball in their court to actively have to fight the spreading of the app as opposed to being a willing participant. BTW, Tor, that thing you ignored in the rest of your post, was designed exactly to fight against things like the Chinese Firewall.

> I also still think that macOS is a more secure OS by design vs Windows, so that may be another reason I'm picking on Windows.

This just makes no sense. If you are making a case against a change, you don't point to the worst implementation of it just because it's the worst, especially when the party that would actually be implementing the alternative has already successfully done so on another platform. It's like a state arguing against marijuana legalization by pointing to a completely different country instead of many of the other US states that have successfully legalized it without catastrophic results. iOS is also "more secure by design". So why do you assume iOS would become Windows and not macOS? There is no logic here, just the desire to use an outdated and more convenient comparison point. If you honestly believe that iOS without the AppStore would become Windows and not the Mac, then you have a very bizarrely low opinion of the engineers on iOS.

> I was very clear that I wasn't comparing the situation with the app store to actual literal murder, but that comparison weaves throughout most of your reply. My point was entirely about the implementation and not at all about the regulated activity.

Yup, and I have provided several great examples of why the situation is very different, including many examples of things that are not "bad" but Apple could not want on the store. Like Tor. And FireFox. All of which you ignored. I also showed examples of how it doesn't have to be a free-for-all that everyone must be subjected to, and that there are other ways to do it. Also ignored. I addressed the main substance of your argument, while still finding it hilarious that the best analogy you could come up with was an "abstract version of the purge".

Listen, I am honestly glad that the circumstances in your life are such that Apple's decisions may not have a meaningful impact on your ability to escape censorship or fight for your right to be heard, but I hope someday you'll understand that these real scenarios that have actually taken place matter as much as your hypothetical worst-case scenarios that involve Apple implementing a slightly different system in the most un-Apply way, as opposed to the way they've done so with tremendous success on their other platform.

And yes, when presented with a wall of text consisting of mostly emotional arguments talking past my points, I started skimming.

Finally, you really shouldn't stoop to ad-hominem like you did at the end of your post. You have no idea who I am or my life experience, and even if you did, it's still not a valid argument regardless of my circumstances. Try to be less sanctimonious.

If the consequences of the decisions a company makes aren't a good metric for whether they are good decisions or not, then what is? We're talking about the largest company on Earth that often has a larger effect on the world than many countries do, and you want to take "outcomes" off the table for argument?

> I'm not here to argue on the fine points of China policy or human rights.

Oh, I'm aware, as you seem more than willing to throw out anachronistic arguments (like using the Chinese Firewall as an excuse before it was in place), and then immediately try to change the subject when it's clear you're out of your depth.

> And yes, when presented with a wall of text consisting of mostly emotional arguments talking past my points, I started skimming.

I'm not sure how you can know it's emotional when you've admitted to not having read it. I'm also perplexed as to why you bother responding if you aren't willing to read what you're responding to. It's like writing a review for a movie you haven't seen, it's not going to be a good review.

*> Finally, you really shouldn't stoop to ad-hominem [...] Try to be less sanctimonious."

Some would argue that blanket describing an entire post that someone invested time in writing as "emotional" to the point of not needing to be read is a fairly bold and "sanctimonious" value-judgement. I at least take the time to read your responses before drawing any conclusions.

You were correct, and you seem to know much more about history than I do. All I can do is learn, but again, we aren't here to talk about the timeline of the HK protests. You may have a valid point bringing it up with Apple's pull on the world, but that's not the whole picture. That's all I was trying to say.

> I'm not sure how you can know it's emotional when you've admitted to not having read it

I read a lot of it but after the third time seeing you mention a detail I'd already told you wasn't relevant, yeah, I stopped trying so hard.

Hopefully you trust me when I say I've read everything else you've written, not sure how you think I could keep replying to your quotes otherwise.

> Some would argue that blanket describing an entire post that someone invested time in writing as "emotional" to the point of not needing to be read is a fairly bold and "sanctimonious" value-judgement

Not the same thing as what you were trying to do at all. You tried to pigeonhole me into some class of person in order to undercut my arguments. I merely pointed out that you were letting your emotions run away with your arguments... indeed, you did talk by my point, multiple times.

> You tried to pigeonhole me into some class of person in order to undercut my arguments.

I guess I didn't think it was much of a stretch to assume that someone who conveys the position of "sure, people fighting for their freedoms and journalists evading censorship are valid points -- BUT, that's not the whole picture, remember how bad Windows was?" is unlikely to have had to face these issues. For the record, that wouldn't make you bad, I haven't had to face these issues either. And you're right, for all I know it may very well be the case that you're typing this from a laptop in the desert fighting for water rights or something, but still open minded enough to be just as concerned about the practical business desires of Apple's AppStore. I simply think your post repeatedly skipping the points about Tor gave off a sense of irreverence with regard to them, arguably just as insulting as assuming you haven't had to deal with them. I'm sure you can understand any frustration that might generate, considering you've now admitted you may have not read them.

That being said, I don't think an outsider reading my post would think it is really all that "emotional". Passionate perhaps. Either way, I think you mentioned that that wasn't what we were arguing about. I guess I don't know where the demarcation lines of what we're arguing about are. I'm simply arguing about the effects of the AppStore, and what I believe would be the benefits of other alternatives, to Apple, customers, and yes, the world. As you yourself said, "the whole picture." I began this thread by stating that pricing was not the real problem, so I think I certainly hinted as much. My only hope is that our conversation has perhaps introduced you to concerns about the AppStore beyond the IMO tired discussion of whether 30% is or isn't too high, which is the unfortunate form that this argument usually takes, since it is usually presented as "Apple's interests" vs. "3rd party developers' interests," but that I think is ultimately just a small part of the conversation.