[noir_lord]

Not sure they could get away with it (but would be amazing if they could, the push back would be collosal) but it's a hell of a sword to dangle over Apple's head.

And yes I agree that should be the case, having a side channel like that makes the App store behave better because if you piss users/developers off enough they will go around you so then you have to compete on ease of use, discovery.

[braythwayt]

We don't need to debate the tradeoffs, but we should acknowledge that there are tradeoffs. If a side-channel is available to all users, developers will spring into action making games, porn, and discount coupon apps that can only be installed via the side-channel...

Bypassing security review. Next thing you know, a goodly number of the world's phones have become surveillance devices, bank account emptiers, DDOS zombies, and bitcoin miners.

Whether the benefits of a side-channel for liberties outweigh the negatives of such a future is a worthy discussion, but we ought to at least acknowledge that the walled garden has some merits above and beyond Apple's stock price.

[barthvr]

So what you're saying is Apple cannot secure iOS to prevent this from happening? Like mandatory anti-malware built directly in the OS ?

Phone makers should not be able to sell their phones, only lease them, since there not yours in the first place.

[braythwayt]

I believe security isn’t an either/or, there are a number of countermeasures, and they all serve a purpose. For example, sandboxing is the exact thing you’re speaking of: anti-malware built into iOS.

But another thing is reviewing apps looking for dark patterns in the UX. That is not relevant to the hey.com situation, but it is one of the things I think needs to be done by humans at this point.

Next: You are speaking of “Freedom Zero,” the freedom to own your own hardware (and software, ideally). I am 100% in favour of everyone having Freedom Zero.

But! I think it’s a little like freedom of speech on the Internet. If every single social media site everywhere has moderation, and bans users, and every hosting company rejects web sites for %reasons%, then nobody has freedom of speech.

But if there is genuine choice, if some users can hang out on HN—where there is moderation—and some users can go hang out on (not listing names) where they can talk white supremacy and billg’s conspiracy to implant microchips in vaccines and why women have the real power in the world...

Well, then HN doesn’t have freedom of speech, but the internet as a whole does.

My feeling is that when a single walled garden reaches a certain dominant size, then it really impacts freedom zero. I’m not sure that Apple is there yet just because it makes a lot of money. Users still have a real choice in devices and ecosystems. I’m Apple, my own brother is Android.

But I agree that there is a point at which a company can become a de-facto monopoly. I don’t agree this means “over their customers.” A mall has a monopoly over those who enter, but that’s not relevant until either all the malls take over an entire town’s shopping.

But yes, “Freedom Zero” matters, and yes, there could be a point where a single company becomes dominant enough that users don’t have a realistic/reasonable choice when buying devices.