[soraminazuki]

> Is epic user hostile?

Let's see an example of dodgy kernel drivers. How about Easy Anti-Cheat? Go to their page at https://www.easy.ac/en-us/. Guess who develops it?

> hypothetical monopolistic practices

Hypothetical monopolistic practices really? Because I vividly recall Facebook skirting App Store security policies to make users install a privacy invading VPN app, which they also used to gather data on competitors[1]. But I'm sure that's fine because people have alternatives to Facebook. Or perhaps not[2].

[1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15007454

[2]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25363366

[BenTheElder]

> Let's see an example of dodgy kernel drivers. How about Easy Anti-Cheat? Go to their page at https://www.easy.ac/en-us/. Guess who develops it?

Their store does not install or require this. Specific applications require it for online play (and generally only for online play...)

Microsoft does not ban this behavior on any storefront, AFAIK. Having a single storefront would not change this.

> Hypothetical monopolistic practices really? Because I vividly Facebook skirting App Store security policies to make users install a privacy invading VPN app, which they also used to gather data on competitors[1].

Amusingly this occurred under the current iOS app restrictions, which clearly didn't prevent this.

An argument could be made for certain high-risk extension point access (such as VPN) could be limited independently of general apps, but the fact that there's a bad VPN app is a silly excuse for restricting the install of simple applications.

The app sandbox should provide plenty of protection, and if the user opts to give apps permissions, that's on their choice. I really don't think users are going to install an app store that requires the usage of a sketchy VPN app ...

If this were the case, surely it would exist already on android :-)

> But I'm sure that's fine because people have alternatives to Facebook. Or perhaps not[2].

[2]: is exactly why we don't need to leave Apple's monopoly in place to "defeat other monopolies" ... we have other tools for that. Let users (and their representatives etc.) decide.

[soraminazuki]

> Their store does not install or require this.

How does this matter? You've shown doubts that epic engages in user hostile behavior. I've shown you evidence. It shows that they can't be trusted with the security and privacy of their customer's devices.

> Amusingly this occurred under the current iOS app restrictions, which clearly didn't prevent this.

Amusingly the app wouldn't have been pulled if it was Facebook running the App Store. It likely wouldn't have made the headlines either because it would be common practice. This is the same Facebook, along with Google, that abused enterprise certificates to skirt the app review process itself[1].

> The app sandbox should provide plenty of protection, and if the user opts to give apps permissions, that's on their choice.

You'd be amazed at the lengths some users went through to install Google and Facebook's sketchy "research" app[1].

But to get back to the point, all I'm saying boils down to two things:

- Apple should enable FOSS communities to run an app store and also make it easy for power users to side load apps

- Consumers should be extremely cautious of big players demanding more access to their personal devices

Is this such a silly position to take?

[1]: https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2019/02/google-screenwise-unwi...