Uh, read a little farther up: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39680209
> Ok, just continue to only use the iPhone app store
So, I imagine that if I restate my point here, you'll just ignore it. So how about I point you to elsewhere in this thread that I've made the point: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39680211 and https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39681056 and https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39680739
In case you missed it, the key takeaway:
> You're missing the forest for the trees. Apple offers a curated environment largely through the curation of the app store. That curated environment is massively valuable to the average user. That's the asset Apple is trying to protect.
I've noticed this trend with a lot of my engineering / tech friends: really good at tech, but completely clueless in understanding the actual value to users that a tech thing provides. That's the distinction which makes this not-a-contradiction; but since you're probably mistaking the technology itself for the value it provides, that won't make sense.
If you disagree with that argument, fine. But you can't use it in support of anything.
So then no, people cannot "just go use an android" as their choice is equally taken away from them by Apple's market power and decisions.
It's totally fine for you to admit that your original argument of "just don't use X" is stupid.
Which is why we now have regulation. Which isn't going to go away.
Goodbye 30% fee!
Uh, no it's not? I'm sorry but you're not making sense. If users want more freedom, they can just use Android. Some users like the walled garden; they can choose Apple. If they want something else, Android is right there.
> Apple's market power and decisions
Is exactly how and why they managed to have a curated environment.
It seems like you have this idea in your head about what I mean, and I don't think it's accurate, and I don't think it's being updated. I'm not going to engage anymore; all you've done is attempt cheap shots, and miss.
do you see the equivalence here? what am i missing?
> Apple offers a curated environment largely through the curation of the app store. That curated environment is massively valuable to the average user. That's the asset Apple is trying to protect.
The user chooses to have an opinionated environment that protects them. If they don't want an opinionated environment, they can choose Android. The fact the environment is opinionated is what's valuable to the user, and what Apple is trying to protect.
Why? Giving the user the ability to install random apps from 3rd party stores opens up the protected ecosystem such that big players like facebook will absolutely take the opportunity to use 3rd party stores, and users will de facto have to use the 3rd party stores. Now the walls of the garden are torn down, and one of the huge values of the iPhone ecosystem has been destroyed.
Big win! Apple's been pulled down to the level of everyone else.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/kateoflahertyuk/2022/04/23/appl...
I, as a user, think that's great.
The Google play store has no similar anti-tracking rules. Why? Well, partly because those rules would negatively impact Google, but also because Meta could credibly decide to move their apps off the play store and onto their own "Meta Store: The only place to get Facebook, Instagram, Threads, and WhatsApp".
If it was easy for Meta to set up their own store for iOS, they absolutely would because currently Apple kneecaps their ability to track and sell user data in ways that costs Meta REAL money.
Google does not exert the same kind of control over the play store, so Meta is quite happy to keep Facebook there.
So, as things stand (with a closed iOS ecosystem) I can use an Instagram app on my phone that's subject to a bunch of pro-consumer rules about tracking and data protection. If iOS allowed third party stores then I would almost certainly not be able to do that any more.
So why don't apps just work around it? Because they have to agree to terms with Apple and SAY that they won't. And then Apple has the power to kick them off the store if they do it anyway.
In addition to that, they have to list what data they collect and what they do with it when they get it. Basically they have to make a bunch of pinky-promises. Some of those pinky-promises Apple just shows to the user as a list of "here's how this company is going to use your data". Other things are just forbidden outright.
Whether a company can collect and sell certain kinds of my data to a third party is not something that can ever be controlled through an OS level feature.
So in other words they have taken the users choice away using their market power! Glad you agree!
Either a user's choice is taken away in both situations, or it is neither situations.
> If users want more freedom, they can just use Android.
Actually they are unable to get the 30% discount from apps that only work on iPhone.
And now they will be! Now the user will be allowed to choose to get that 30% discount and Apple will not be able to take away a user's choice to buy the app on an alternative app store.
You are the one who made the "just don't use it" argument, as applied to the iPhone.
If you can use that argument, then so can everyone else. We can equally say "Ok, just continue to only use the iPhone app store".
Its your argument. Either it applies or it doesn't.
If you want to say that your argument is bad, thats fine. But if you don't then the argument can be equally used against you.
I expect that you'll ignore this clear contradiction though and not address it like you just did in your comment, and if you do that I will take that as an agreement that your argument was bad and you just don't want to admit it, thus you avoid addressing the contradiction.