[Svip]

But regulations, inspections, codes and permits are all government-run systems. As a result, at least in principle in a democracy, citizens (including companies) can request to learn why those systems rejected them. Otherwise they can take them to court.

Neither Apple nor Google are governments. When laws and constitutions were crafted, those framers did not comprehend a future where private companies had effective control (and even monopoly) on what might amount to critical infrastructure, and if not critical, then infrastructure nonetheless.

[crazygringo]

But that's my point. If app stores are an important enough part of our economy -- not just monetarily, but particularly with regard to privacy and cybersecurity -- then there may reach a point where we need laws around their policies.

It doesn't matter that Apple and Google aren't governments. Either app store approval could be done by a new government agency (after all, aren't doctors and lawyers regulated?), or (far more likely) the legislature could pass laws determining how Apple and Google have to run their own or face stiff penalties that actually have teeth.

So that, at the end of the day, if Apple or Google make a wrong decision and refuse to correct it, you can ultimately sue them in court and win.

[yaktubi]

This seems like more a solution to open, transparent platforms. It’s a shame that we are going backwards: you used to be able to download software from the internet, direct from publishers with no limitations. Now everything’s all stupid requiring developers to beg the “powers that be” for access to distribute their work.

[dividedbyzero]

But that isn't sustainable anymore now that everyone and their mother does all sorts of sensitive thing on the internet. App Stores may not catch any and all malware, but they'll catch some, or even a lot, and they give Google (or whoever runs one) tools to deal with what slips through. They make getting new extensions transparent and they're trustworthy.

What's missing is legislation to level the playing field; either allow alternate stores on equal terms, or abide by rules that force you to play fair in your own store, things like that. There's no going back to the 90s, it's just a whole different world now.

[yaktubi]

Yeah I agree the legislation would help—but the legislators mostly don’t know much about tech I’m guessing. And the experts they call in I’d wager are from big companies with their own interests in mind.

[crazygringo]

It's not stupid, though.

Remember how when an older relative would complain about their computer slowing down, and you had to uninstall like 15 toolbars from their Internet Explorer?

Protecting users from malware and spyware is a huge step forward. Most users can't protect themselves from it. Controlled distribution is a net good for society. The question is, how do we minimize the negatives it also brings along with it, such as seemingly arbitrary, inconsistent, and/or vague rejections?

It's not about what we would personally prefer, as smart tech people who know how to protect ourselves. It's about what's best for everyone -- the societal good.

[cft]

I strongly prefer the internet of the early 2000s than it's cable TV version of 2020s in the name of "safety".

[heavyset_go]

That was vastly preferable to the current status quo where your older relative doesn't even complain about their computer slowing down, because they've been trained by 20 years of planned obsolescence and unupgradable hardware to just buy a new one when given the slightest hint of a problem.

[crazygringo]

The two have nothing whatsoever to do with each other.

The conversation is about app stores not hardware upgrades.

Progress in one has nothing to do with progress in the other.

Why are you trying to combine them?