Thanks for that link to Schneier's letter! He breaks down the bills and provides relevant and cogent arguments to both Apple and Google's positions which I hadn't considered.

If I paid for Apple's centralization, by buying their products, and now that's being forcefully removed from me. How is this ok?

What's being removed from you again? Don't sideload apps if you don't like sideloading. Keep using Apple's app store if you like it, or maybe in the future, you will find you like an app store better than Apple's. We will never find out if someone does it better than Apple, if nobody can even try.

> What's being removed from you again? Don't sideload apps if you don't like sideloading. Keep using Apple's app store if you like it, or maybe in the future, you will find you like an app store better than Apple's. We will never find out if someone does it better than Apple, if nobody can even try.

Um, the fact I've told any semi-non-competent person to buy iPhone because it very specifically won't screw up like the popup ridden land of Android.

> Um, the fact I've told any semi-non-competent person to buy iPhone because it very specifically won't screw up like the popup ridden land of Android.

How does this relate to your original comment claiming you're losing something you paid for?

And if Apple can't keep the quality of their software from falling to that level, just because of being slightly more open, then that is their failure.

What? They’ve already prevented it from falling to that level. If that is changed through legislation how is it their failure?

Because they exercise enough control over their platform, the App Store is far from the only avenue of protection.

This is such a facetious argument.

You know that developers will end up using alternate App Stores.

Which means I will be forced to use them if I want to continue to use the app.

> You know that developers will end up using alternate App Stores

This keeps being stated as though it’s a foregone conclusion. All evidence points to the contrary. Look at Google Play. Android has allowed third-party stores since inception and yet the only stores that see any notable use are the ones that ship on devices, i.e. Google Play and to a much smaller extent OEM stores (at least in the English market).

So no, it is not likely that you will have to install another store. Just like most Android users only ever touch the Play Store most iOS users will only ever touch the App Store.

The only notable stores I expect to see from this are an Epic Games store that basically just has Fortnite on it, and some community-driven F-Droid-like.

What developers will do that? Android has alternate stores, and there isn't any vendor lock-in. The Amazon and Samsung Android alternatives to the Play Store aren't huge competitors. Epic hasn't tried to build their alternative Android app store yet with Fortnite as an exclusive. This is all scare-mongering about what could happen but probably won't happen. Name a single major Android app that's located on an alternative app store.

Apple's centralization is not forcefully removed, you can choose to keep using only Apple approved software from Apple store and you will not see any difference. This change would just allows you to install software from another source if you wish. If Apple implements the change similar to how Android works, you will have to allow installation from non-Apple store sources, you can do it per app, you can do it once and then disable it, you can allow main app store to scan all your apps for security.

If you are arguing that some people will be tricked into installing malware from other sources then you are right that this change would allow that but it will still require user to go through few steps which should raise red flags for them. Some people just can't resist pushing that button without thinking and regardless of the consequences and in that case app store safety net is just temporary anyway, they are still exposed to the real world where that will harm them in a more serious way.

> If you are arguing that some people will be tricked into installing malware from other sources then you are right that this change would allow that but it will still require user to go through few steps which should raise red flags for them. Some people just can't resist pushing that button without thinking and regardless of the consequences and in that case app store safety net is just temporary anyway, they are still exposed to the real world where that will harm them in a more serious way.

I seriously could care less what we as HN want out of a phone in a way. We are head strong enough to do something different for ourselves -- literally look at PinePhone, etc.

What I'm concerned about is the trickery that is sinister beyond belief, getting access that they never earned and do not deserve.

Here's an example: https://youtu.be/VrKW58MS12g?t=406

This 'hack' is quite insane... Brillant and horrid... and I foresee it happening left and right.

Yeah; these glitterbomb avengers are contributing to a national airbnb shortage.

Seriously though, I have a hand typed letter from the mid 80's running a similar scam.

If anything, technology has made this sort of thing riskier for the scammers.

Consider how you'd reproduce the vigilante's setup using 1980's technology. It probably wouldn't be feasible.

we already know it causes malware. Android has demonstrated this very clearly.

You also can't retroactively undo a security hole: once you've installed malicious software the other software on the system by definition can't be trusted.

Android has demonstrated that you can have multiple app stores and that majority of users will happily use the default app store which for vast majority of Android phones is Google Play store.

Malware has made it into Google Play store which is Google's fault. Same has happened to Apple (https://9to5mac.com/2021/05/07/emails-reveal-128-million-ios... https://us.norton.com/internetsecurity-emerging-threats-ios-...) so you cannot be guaranteed to be safe just because you are behind a walled garden, you still need to think for yourself.

Allowing app side-loading or different app store is not a security hole. Using non-approved apps or non-trusted app stores might allow for existing security hole to be exploited more easily but it might also allow for better protection against such security hole by providing better curated app stores for less tech-savvy users.

How is it forcefully being removed from you?

I purchased my goods with the express contract that the AppStore will be the only way a developer gets access to Apple's APIs, Libraries, and instruction sets for iPhone.

That's the thesis for a treatise I could write. This breaks the contract I had with them upon purchase.

> I purchased my goods with the express contract that the AppStore will be the only way a developer gets access to Apple's APIs, Libraries, and instruction sets for iPhone.

Any software license you may have purchased is a non-exclusive one. Apple can re-license their own software however they wish.

That’s not true though. Users can already sign and sideload apps from a Mac. It’s just that doing so imposes annoyances (have to manually update apps, and resign every week). Allowing proper sideloading would only eliminate annoyances associated with current capabilities.