[Zelizz]

That's an oversimplification. Lots of people in this thread have mentioned consequences of giving companies like Facebook the option of moving to sideload-only, and how that normalizes not having a quality/policy gatekeeper for installed apps. You can't enforce good app behavior purely from API design.

[AnthonyMouse]

Facebook is a special case with its own solution:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30017171

Then you have a truth. The extent to which people want Apple to curate which apps they can install will control the amount of leverage Apple has to do it with. If people really want it, they'll put up a strong resistance to installing apps from other sources, even if Apple isn't forcing them to. Then Apple will have leverage to enforce good behavior. Or people will only switch to other high quality stores that also reject bad apps.

If it turns out hardly anybody cares, they won't. But then the argument that most people are buying Apple products specifically because they want a curated experience would disintegrate against empirical evidence.

[Jcowell]

No. One of the biggest lie I have always seen is that market moves accordingly to the users wants which, as developers, we must understand is absolute bull crap. Users aren’t binary vessels that act accordingly to if statements. They make compromises and comply with the default until the default inconveniences them extremely. One of the things businesses and we as developers have gotten really good at is hiding this until it’s too late until the Consumer is trapped and locked in.

People will do whatever it takes to use these big apps so long as the friction is perceived to not be to great and by the time the cons are experienced we will all be too entrenched. And no the law will not move to protect consumers, not until it’s far too late, just as this bill is.

[AnthonyMouse]

You are now arguing that this is the case:

> If it turns out hardly anybody cares, they won't. But then the argument that most people are buying Apple products specifically because they want a curated experience would disintegrate against empirical evidence.

And then it goes both ways. If people go out and buy an iPhone because it's shiny and they're uninformed, without realizing it gives a huge corporation the ability to control what they can do with it while collecting rents on everything they buy and hiding all of that from them, that's at least as much of a problem as some app wants to show you ads for shoes because you did a search for shoes.

The solution for both is to do something about the information problem while still giving people choices, not declaring Apple to be Father and all living under corporate patriarchy.

If nobody cares then convince them to care or lose. Locking them in a gilded cage "for their own good" is not a valid solution.