So no, this is not a viable solution in the long run. Besides, Android is a thing. I personally have never used an iPhone as my real phone precisely because of this — I can't install modded apps, I can't install pirated apps, etc etc. It's not okay to have to jailbreak the thing to make it usable.
I guess we'll have to tell millions of users that their iPhones are all unusable, then. Imagine the shock!
Besides, being able to install modified apps is an important leverage against companies that don't act in their users' best interest. This way you can still use their services, but do so on your own terms.
1. They don't think about these kinds of second-order effects. They see that this company is somehow involved with the government and that's it. Their electorate won't care about these kinds of details because they're "doing something" to supposedly stop the war sooner.
2. They think that Russians would somehow revolt against the government. This doesn't work — the Russian government lacks any meaningful feedback mechanisms. By protesting, you'd expose yourself to immense personal risks for no discernible effect. Unless you're a heavily armed private army heading straight for Moscow.
Whether the effect is "good" depends on whether you think someone's device should serve its user or some government.
By me I mean all those people who chose Apple for what it is and ignore Android for what it is, with regards to what we’re talking about.
You have no real problem, only intrusive ideology. Please relax and leave us alone. We’ll speak for ourselves when we feel wronged.
If you want your device to be controlled by Apple, keep installing apps exclusively from the app store when the sideloading inevitably comes. Just like you can already choose to do on macOS.
I don't think "app store competition" is going to be much of a factor for iOS post-DMA, but I do expect hobbyists and open source developers to congregate around AltStore or something and create a repository of free utility apps without having to pay Apple's developer fees.
that is correct. If android users were more willing to use alternate stores, Google would have less control.
That said, I do enjoy being able to sideload apps with no hassle. Google may not allow 18+ apps or some emulators but I can find those no problem.
Office apps (iWork)? There is Office 365, GSuite
Storage providers (iCloud)? All third party storage providers show up next to iCloud when you use the file dialog box - DropBox, Box, Google Drive, One Drive
Streaming apps (AppleTV)? There are dozens and when you search for a TV show or movie, the AppleTV app will tell you which subscribe services have it?
Streaming music (Apple Music)? Spotify, Tidal and Pandora are all on the App Store?
Etc…
> do have a very real problem. I don't want Apple to impose their agenda on me and act like they own the relationship between me and my users
Guess what? I as an end user don’t want to have a “relationship” with you. When I pay for an app, I don’t want to give every Tom, Dick and Harry my credit card information. When I get ready to cancel my subscription, I don’t want to have to deal with you.
Netflix's "you can't sign up through the app" is a prime example of this that immediately comes to mind but there are many more.
An argument can be made that hey.com is, in a way, competitor to the paid iCloud subscription. Yet Apple acts as if they own that relationship and that the app store was valuable in bringing the users to the app: https://www.hey.com/apple/iap/
Do you really think it's fair that all competing services have to be 30% more expensive than Apple's own ones if they play by Apple's rules?
There used to be lots of iOS apps that allowed streaming pirated music. Everyone, including Apple, was seemingly fine with that and never asked where the music came from. But then, suddenly, when Apple Music was preparing to launch, all those apps started magically getting rejected for breaking the rule on "illegal file sharing".
> When I pay for an app,
Stop right here. No one was talking about paid apps. My initial point was about free apps. But if you so insist, in a FREE market, app developers would offer two options: pay through Apple with their 30% tax, or pay directly without it. I'll let you figure out which option most people would choose.
In reality they will make scummest apps possible and ignore the AppStore completely. Only very big players and those whose primary target is AppStore anyway will offer two options.
He said the app was “rejected” as in not allowed in the store.
> Do you really think it's fair that all competing services have to be 30% more expensive than Apple's own ones if they play by Apple's rules?
Well seeing that neither Netflix, Hey or Spotify allow in app purchases and don’t pay Apple 30%…
> There used to be lots of iOS apps that allowed streaming pirated music. Everyone, including Apple, was seemingly fine with that and never asked where the music came from
When has Apple ever allowed apps that focused on pirated music?
And Apple has been selling music on the iPhone since the day it was introduced - well to be pedantic, three months after it went in sale.
> But if you so insist, in a FREE market, app developers would offer two options: pay through Apple with their 30% tax, or pay directly without it.
And there is nothing stopping you from doing that. In fact, Spotify did that for awhile.
We choose it because it repels this “me wanna you should they need to” attitude. Please make apps that obey the rules or ignore the platform. Don’t tell anyone what they have to do for you without a contract.
That will be solved if/when they need to allow alternate App stores. But even then, The App store is Apple's own store, right? They make their own rules on what's allowed or no on their store.
I have no issues with them controlling their store (as an android user, Google does the same despite having much less care). I'm just glad they are seemingly being forced to open up for stores that want different rules.
It should be enforced as a rental.
Either I own my property and control my property, or it's not my property. If not mine, whose is it? All we need to look is who controls it then.
This is all first-sale doctrine stuff. And I don't believe any new laws need be made to enforce this.