[michaelmrose]

Why ought a developer be forced to accept all terms on offer?

If I released an app store that forced you to offer the app for the lowest price it's available elsewhere while charging the dev 1/2 of the profit and inspired users to use it by giving them a rebate equal to 30% of the cost I presume I could get some takers.

After all if it's 10 bucks on the apple store it's 7 on mine.

3rd party stores aren't a check on unreasonable terms if developers are legally forced to do business on the oems terms no matter how unreasonable.

[llukas]

User bought platform that requires app to comply with do not track me request from the user. It is property of each app.

Do not want to respect it but still be on the platform? Please gtfo…

[stale2002]

> Do not want to respect it but still be on the platform? Please gtfo…

You don't have to install those apps, lol. You can feel free to tell Facebook to GTFO off of the phone that you own, by merely not installing it.

But why should one think, that they should control someone 'elses' phone? If someone else wants to install facebook, on that other app store, let them do it.

[filoleg]

> You don't have to install those apps, lol. You can feel free to tell Facebook to GTFO off of the phone that you own, by merely not installing it.

You are correct, I can simply not install those apps that I believe violate privacy rules of the platform. However, in this case, I will not be able to sleep worry-free after handing my barely technologically literate parents an iPhone anymore, because they will immediately install all the random crap without any second thoughts about privacy. Switching my mother away from android to an iPhone (and subsequently, from Windows to macOS) has reduced my "home IT troubleshooting" workload to pretty much nil. I don't want to go back to how it was before. That's pretty much why I got my mom an iPhone, so that her device can be fairly secure without tons of guidance and troubleshooting on my end.

The wild west of "I am a responsible person, so I can decide what's good to install and what isn't, because I can evaluate this on my own" isn't the kind of a situation I want to put my parents in. I want them to not worry about it and be able to install whatever apps they can without any major worries about malware or privacy or breaking their device, and that's why I switched them to iOS.

[stale2002]

If we are even the least bit creative, there are easy solutions to your problem.

Just provide users with a way of "locking down" their phone to only allow the app store that they choose, with some difficult undo process, if the user chooses that.

So that way, people who want parental/child controls on their phone can have them, and those who disagree, and want to remove those protections, can choose to do so.

As long as the locking down, is a choice that the user can make, and it is not forced on everyone, then we all can get what we want. Well, except Apple I guess.

[llukas]

Problem is that it is incompatible to "get what we want".

For people who bought into managed garden the minute it is dismantled you lose "all apps need to stick to do not track me request" you get mish-mash of everything.

This is cost to give others freedom to side load. There is no way to put genie into the bottle if it is out.

Only way I see it would be possible is that Apple could offer fully locked iPhones and multi-store iPhones. Then market could decide what works better.

Developers, especially on HN, cannot accept there is group of customers that just doesn't want to interact them directly.

[stale2002]

> For people who bought into managed garden

There is nothing that prevents you from staying in the managed garden. Just use the Apple app store, and don't use other app stores.

> Developers, especially on HN, cannot accept there is group of customers that just doesn't want to interact them directly.

Then don't interact with them. Just use the Apple app store only. Problem solved.