[havernator]

Apple can no longer force vendors who want access to iOS to play by the rules that I want them to be forced to play by, is the main risk of adding more stores. I bought iOS devices in part for the effects of that leverage—I chose that. It's also a choice.

[simion314]

Sure, but can you take a short pause and parse what you say:

"I personally love it how Apple is taking my freedom, I love it so much that I want to force Apple rules on everyone else."

The fact you like current Apple rules and you got scared by some FUD should not make you entitled to ask other to stop fighting for more freedom(my family have Android phones and they did not installed any other store, side loaded apps or got hacked). Apple could give the iPhone locked and give you a code on a paper you can use to unlock, you can FUD your parents to never use the code, you can burn the code, you can also not side load applications. You could also demand dear Apple to implement some safe sandboxing/jail where you can be safe to run anything, I heard they have enough money so maybe they could pay better those security engineers that keep finding bugs in their shit.

[gonehome]

You're missing the core value. It's not hacks, it's policy.

Apple leverages their power against app devs and for their customers.

- IAP, Apple ID, No Tracking, Notification Control, etc.

In a world where Apple doesn't have leverage via the store they can't enforce these things. App devs would ship outside of the store and include whatever crap they wanted. This is a worse experience and there is no 'choice' available for the users to pick a better one.

Apple is effectively acting as a legislator here, improving the quality of apps via their leverage in the interest of their users. It's a standard I'm willing to pay extra for and enforces good standards around privacy. The government law makers are largely owned by regulatory capture and lack of technical ability - why would we destroy the ability for one company that actually has incentives aligned with their users to enforce standards?

If Apple loses that leverage we lose that high quality option - you can't have it both ways because the leverage is what allows the incentive control.

People that don't care about it should use Android.

[simion314]

This argument is FUD. Until Epyc games had the courage to complain I could have asked you to name an example and you would not find anything that is not on Google Play with exception of maybe Free Software.

If this is not FUD do you have a source that shows that thousands of poor grandmas that have Android were forced to side load Farmville and if this happened what was the damage (except that some bilionaires made a few less millions)

[gonehome]

Android app store doesn't have the same review process or restrictions so it's not really a relevant comparison.

If Google tried to enforce more policy app devs would use other stores/side load.

In hostile countries the google play store is usually not present at all.

[simion314]

>In hostile countries the google play store is usually not present at all

Isn't this a good thing? In countries like China you could force Apple to spy and censor users where Android users can side load applications from trusted sources.

>If Google tried to enforce more policy app devs would use other stores/side load.

What kind of policies ? Any example of such policies? GUI/UX stuff or you mean policies where you can't link to a donate page because Apple wants that sweet tax, I think you are not ready to admit that you are spreading FUD, reality does not match and you are still building a fantasy.

[gonehome]

Phones in China are owned at the network and software level - you can’t safely side load anything. I’m not sure Apple is safe here either, but I’d guess the security is better? Just guessing though based on reading what security people have blogged about the platforms.

For the policies - things like requiring better ID auth or blocking tracking or requiring IAP. I agree that the tax is bad and stated so elsewhere.

> “ I think you are not ready to admit that you are spreading FUD, reality does not match and you are still building a fantasy.”

This kind of rhetoric when you disagree with someone isn’t helpful and doesn’t change minds.

[Barrin92]

I understand that's what you want, I want to know why you want that. Apple being able to exercise market power is bad for you, it means that Apple can command higher prices that are being passed on to you. It's like saying you only want Walmart in your neighborhood, because that means Walmart can coerce its vendors. The only one who benefits from this is the platform owner. Competition is good (for you, the consumer, even if you only shop at one store!.

[Gaelan]

That's the thing: Apple's exercising market power does bring all sorts of benefits to users. Obvious examples include the new privacy rules they're imposing, in-app purchases allowing any subscriptions to be cancelled with zero hassle. If Apple allowed other app stores, Facebook would almost certainly move to one that let them produce a far more invasive app. And the vast majority of the users will just download Facebook from the new store, because most people (myself included, tbh) value convenience over any absolutist stances about the software they use—see the past several decades of the free software movement.

The net result: Apple losing their monopoly means a huge influx of user-hostile behavior in apps.

Now, you're not wrong either—Apple does, in some cases, abuse their monopoly, and probably takes more of a cut than is fair from IAPs. (Although, quite frankly, I'd be shocked if the money from cheaper IAPs went to reducing prices and not increasing profits.) So yes, Apple's behavior here is harmful in some ways, but it does good in others. Like pretty much everything in this world, it ain't black and white.

[berkes]

In essence that is arguing that an abusive monopoly (facebook) must be fought with another abusive monopoly (apple).

[Gaelan]

Yeah, I suppose that is what I am arguing. Apple is absolutely an abusive monopoly, but tackling them alone without simultaneously handling Facebook and co would result in a net loss for the average consumer.

[havernator]

Absent government regulation? Yes, exactly. If Mecha-Godzilla shows up I'm very, very happy to have Godzilla around to fuck them up, even if Godzilla is a dangerous monster and it would be better to have no monsters.

[Mindwipe]

And screw the vulnerable people your Gozilla murders under it's feet eh?

[havernator]

Since don’t-have-monsters isn’t an option—yes? Especially since most of the ones being “murdered” by Apple aren’t the vulnerable, in any kind of relevant sense, but software developers and publishes. People who just use the devices knew what they were getting and paid extra for it.

[JumpCrisscross]

> that is arguing that an abusive monopoly (facebook) must be fought with another abusive monopoly (apple)

Plus the entire den of pests that is adtech and its various tracking companies, most of whom are far from monopolies.

[gonehome]

It's not abusive if it benefits its users.

[ClumsyPilot]

"Apple can no longer force vendors who want access to iOS to play by the rules"

Yes, thank you for spelling it out thst you want apple to continie violating other people's freedom and perpetuating anticonpetitive practicea

[havernator]

Kicking a business out of your mall for abusive behavior has got to be the lamest variety of “violating freedom” ever.

[CRConrad]

So only install apps from the Apple App Store then. How do other app stores where developers aren't forced to play by those Apple rules affect you then?

[TchoBeer]

Because then I can't install any of the apps that are no longer on the app store.

[CRConrad]

But these evil dangerous apps wouldn't have been allowed by Apple in the first place, so they'd never have been on their app store to begin with.

Or, IOW: You can't do that after Apple bans them from their store either. Apps getting banned from there so you can't download them is a thing that actually exists in the here and now.