Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by smoldesu 1278 days ago
Well, good news. Apple can still blur the lines for you while unlocking the bootloader for me and letting normal users install software packages. You have yet to present an example of how the things I want conflict with the things you want.
1 comments
yamtaddle 1278 days ago
Go read the discussion sections of any of the other 50,000 times this exact exchange has happened. There's plenty of explaining in those. It never seems to get through, but you could fill a 20-volume encyclopedia with those (incredibly repetitive) posts.

TL;DR many Apple users like the way things are now, and don't want any amount of risk to that. The chief risk we see is that we'll no longer be able to get 100% of the software we want (or are forced to use) on iOS through the Apple app store, with all of Apple's protections and guarantees, or that Apple will have to reduce those protections and guarantees to keep such a splintering from happening. Yes, we're aware that Android hasn't seen much adoption of alternative stores, but Android also hasn't (delightfully) jammed a thumb in Facebook's eye over and over. Even a small chance of that coming to pass isn't worth it to us. We wish you'd all just go use Android or Linux phones or whatever and leave us alone.

link
smoldesu 1278 days ago
Well, sucks for you. Europe wants Apple to compete with other software stores, and you'll be hard-pressed to defend Apple's stranglehold on software distribution.

It's fine that you enjoy Apple's curation, they can still curate things for you under the new law. They just also need to provide competitive app distribution. Considering how many complaints I've heard from devs vis-a-vis the App Store, I reckon some competition is exactly what Apple needs to put them in line.

link
yamtaddle 1278 days ago
> Well, sucks for you.

Yes. So you get why some of us aren't thrilled about all this.

link
ThatPlayer 1278 days ago
>The chief risk we see is that we'll no longer be able to get 100% of the software we want (or are forced to use) on iOS through the Apple app store

I don't think that's ever been the case. You've never been able to get an alternative browser on the Apple App Store or a streaming gaming app such as Xbox Cloud Gaming, or Geforce Now. Or currently I cannot get Fortnite

These are all apps I want that are not available on the Apple App Store.

link
Terretta 1277 days ago
I play Xbox Cloud Gaming. On iOS. As a web app saved to Home Screen. Works fantastic, iPad Pro with Xbox controller is the bomb.

(Btw, SetApp app approach works too.)

Meanwhile, Steam competes with Gig on PC and charges 30%. All this 'allow alt app stores to break apple's pricing' (zero other real benefits are cited) has not happened on PC.

link
ThatPlayer 1277 days ago
Sure, but I'm responding to a complaint about apps not being available on the App Store, and neither is Xbox Cloud Streaming. If we were talking about iOS, then alternative app stores and browsers would still be iOS.

Steam is a different product in a different market. Steam's 30% is set by the market deciding that Steam's value is worth the 30%. Apple's 30% comes from whatever Apple feels like charging because there is no alternatives, hence the complaints. If you believe Apple's 30% comes from value and that no one can beat it, then they should be able to prove it in some free market competition like Steam has.

link
yamtaddle 1278 days ago
Then you're not part of that "we" :-)

Which is fine, to be clear. It's just opinions and preferences.

link
unity1001 1278 days ago
> TL;DR many Apple users like the way things are now, and don't want any amount of risk to that

And that's how it will be if you choose to use Apple's software sources. Its as simple as that.

There is absolutely no argument for preventing other people from using something else.

link
yamtaddle 1278 days ago
> There is absolutely no argument for preventing other people from using something else.

There is though. I'm not going to post it yet again because it's already in this thread multiple times, and in literally every other thread like this ever on this site.

You might disagree with the argument, but you're flat-out wrong that it doesn't exist or can be trivially dismissed on factual grounds.

link