Comment by empath-nirvana
2 years ago
I like the app store, I like the restrictions, I don't want apple to change anything about it. I sort of think apple shouldn't try to comply with these sorts of potential lawsuits by making their app store worse, they should just let people jail break the phone and offer zero support for it.
If people want to buy an iphone and shit it up, let them do it.
I want iOS to be like macOS in that there's one "blessed" store, but I can sell, distribute, and install apps outside of it without giving Apple a cut.
macOS has proven for decades that a reasonably proprietary OS can be distributed and kept reasonably secure when apps are installed on it outside of an App Store. There's even third-party App Stores on macOS like Steam, Homebrew, and a few more that Indie developers use to distribute apps.
> , but I can sell, distribute, and install apps outside of it without giving Apple a cut.
I want this personally for me. But I paid extra money to get my mom an iPhone exactly because she won't be able to stuff like this.
I used to regularly have to fix her android phone and the last time she was trying to download an app for tracking hours at work, and somehow downloaded the wrong app with a similar name, this app loaded with 3 different pop ups telling her to install other ad filled apps with generic names like "PDF reader".
OP is right, it should be an explicit jailbreaking process that has a technical barrier to entry where my mom can't be talked into doing it over the phone but an enterprising young person could figure it out.
Apple has a setting in macOS that disables installing apps outside of the App Store. This would be a completely reasonable setting for iOS for less tech savvy people.
6 replies →
There are plenty of junk apps in the App Store now. Apple does a good job marketing trustworthiness, but having competing app stores may at least get them to put more effort into backing it up.
1 reply →
As a heavy Linux user for most things I feel the same.
I love that I have all non tech savvy people in my life are using. Devices that just work, they all seem happy too. I get the idealistic nature of these lawsuits but people buy these phones for the fact they work and for the protected App Store. Including myself.
1 reply →
Are you suggesting your Mom has/would have the same experience on macOS? For whatever reason it doesn't seem to be as much of an issue.
It probably doesn't need to be as cumbersome as a jailbreak. Maybe it's just a "Allow apps not approved by Apple" toggle hidden deep in the settings. I actually would love the ability to set "IT administrator account" on device setup. Then mom can't even change the setting without notifying "dmix" :)
Now, everyone bow to dmix'es preferences about his mom.
If you want to child-lock you mom's phone, you should have the ability to do so. Default for adults getting any sort of hardware should be that they are in charge, and any nanny should be opt-in.
17 replies →
Your mom would have to go out of her way to find and install a separate app store. You could make it give all sorts of warnings that would scare off a non-tech user like your mom.
2 replies →
Apple app store has the exact same problems. There was even a post on HN last week about an scam app being the first result in the app store.
3 replies →
This seems reasonable and I like the idea of unlocking the capabilities the hardware already has. What makes iPhone different from Xbox, Playstation, Nintendo Switch?
We should be forcing game consoles to open up as well. As well as every other computing device that you can purchase.
This is Hacker News; maximizing the freedom to hack our own property is an inviolable position.
1 reply →
> macOS has proven for decades that a reasonably proprietary OS can be distributed and kept reasonably secure when apps are installed on it outside of an App Store.
That’s not really true. Despite the dangers of centralized app censorship, the state of security on iOS is far beyond that of macOS.
iOS also has even more security threats, because a phone is in your pocket and has GPS, and your laptop isn't.
1 reply →
It’s reasonably secure because no one has bothered to write malware for it.
But there was nothing on the Mac stopping Zoom from putting a backdoor web server on Macs.
Apple could revoke Zoom's signing certificate, if they were discovered to be doing this.
2 replies →
Open source store would be nice. Apple reviews the release ($$$), builds on their server and guarantees it does what it says it does.
This would be lovely. As far as I know, right now its entirely possible for an app developer to show clean, trustworthy code on github. And then ship an app bundle on the app store which contains malware.
I'd love it if Apple provided a way to protect against this sort of thing.
I am very pro-users-owning-their-computers, which makes me highly critical of Apple's behavior. However, these sorts of lawsuits or regulations that seek to force Apple to change App Store policies feel so wrong-headed and out of touch. The problem with Apple is not that they take a 30% cut of app sales in their store, or that they don't allow alternative browser engines or wallets apps or superapps or whatever in their store. It's their store and they ought to be able to curate it however they like. The problem is that users cannot reasonably install software through any means other than that single store. The problem is that Apple reserves special permissions and system integrations for their own apps and denies them to anyone else. That is not an acceptable way for a computer to work.
> That is not an acceptable way for a computer to work.
Luckily, you have a choice. Other companies make handheld computers that align better with your definition of ownership.
> Luckily, you have a choice. Other companies make handheld computers that align better with your definition of ownership.
The issue is that your choice is constrained by vertical integration. If you like Apple's hardware, or iOS, or iMessage, or any number of other things, these are all tied together with Apple's app store when they should not be. It's like encountering a retail monopoly in California and someone tells you that you're lucky because you can shop at another store and all you have to do is move to Florida, which also has a retail monopoly, but a different one.
Obviously this is not the same thing, and does not have the same benefits, as multiple stores being right next to each other and allowing you to choose the one you want on a per-purchase basis.
5 replies →
I am quite aware of the landscape. I use a Pixel phone with GrapheneOS and an iPhone. I prefer many aspects of my iPhone, and can understand why many people choose one as their primary or sole mobile computer. A phone is a very special product category, it's where most users keep their digital lives. As such switching costs are quite high, and user agency is quite important. In general software introduces some very odd dynamics into ownership. If you buy a vacuum cleaner you can take it home, plug it in, and vacuum every room in your house; the vacuum cleaner is yours. If you buy a Roomba and take it home, it demands that you sign a unilateral EULA, then install an app on your phone, and then informs you that it will only clean one room unless you sign up for Roomba Pro for $20/mo[0]. So clearly Roomba still owns the vacuum cleaner they just sold you; they have the final say in what it does or doesn't do. That's ownership. Now, technically, you can legally disassemble your Roomba, and if you manage to dump, modify, and reflash its control software, then you'd be allowed to use your product to clean multiple rooms without paying monthly for the privilege. That would require a lot of effort and specialized skills and tooling, and you would then not be allowed to share your modifications with less skilled Roomba owners because doing so would almost certainly involve trafficking DRM circumvention technology, which is a crime. So in practical terms you only own the Roomba as an inanimate plastic puck.
This whole situation maps to iPhones as well. As things stand when you purchase an iPhone you own a glass brick, and Apple owns the phone part. They graciously allow you to use their phone to perform a certain limited set of activities. I am fundamentally opposed to this sort of non-ownership. Whether the buyer had an option to purchase a roughly-equivalent item with different terms is irrelevant; selling someone a product while retaining ownership of it is a mockery of property rights. Some rights are too important to allow people to sign them away with the tap of a button. When the market missteps by rewarding bad behavior like this it is the job of our democratic governments to step in and mandate good behavior.
[0]: this is made up to illustrate a point, I don't actually know how Roomba service works
13 replies →
Phones are unique in the consumer space because of how thoroughly they can restrict end user usage. Once you buy an iPhone you can use it physically as a hammer if you wish, but if you want to digitally use a non-Apple wallet then you are restricted. Most consumer goods don't behave this way; my TV lets me watch anything I input into it, my bike lets me ride to wherever a pedal to, my vacuum lets me clean my counter if I want it to. Consumers are choosing a desirable physical good with undesirable digital restrictions. Apple is flexing its hardware power to its advantage and end user's disadvantage in software.
22 replies →
Luckily, we have anti-trust and other forms of law and regulation specifically because assuming markets will alway provide meaningful choices has historically proven a bad assumption.
3 replies →
Motor companies should not be able to gate physical features (seat heaters) behind software.
My opinion isn't changed by the fact that I can purchase from a company that doesn't do that.
7 replies →
Luckily, people can like something despite shortcomings and ask for it to become better.
“You can buy this other thing” is not a good defense against antitrust allegations simply because that’s not what it’s about.
1 reply →
But these computers are so different… But if Apple does that it would be differently different… /s
I mean, what gp wants is literally just there on the shelves and they don’t want it. But they also want it, but in Apple, because it’s nicer when Apple does[n’t] it. Why would they want it after Apple does it?
7 replies →
Unfortunately regulations and lawsuits like this one seek to reduce the amount of meaningful choices consumers have in the smartphone market.
Isn't that exactly what the EU went after?
They didn't tell Apple not to charge 30% for their App Store. They can charge 90% for all they care.
They told Apple they mustn't block other installation methods.
Sort of. My reading of the DMA is basically what you're saying; Apple has to let people install what they want on their phones, Apple cannot self-preference with app capabilities. Apple is planning to comply not by allowing users to install what they want on their devices, but instead by offering companies an avenue to enter a business relationship with Apple through which Apple will allow users install that company's applications, provided that Apple has vetted and signed them. That is, all told Apple still has final say over what apps are allowed on peoples' phones. It sounds like the EC is going to nix those app-signing requirements, but the rest of the scheme may or may not be deemed acceptable.
So the question remains whether the spirit of the DMA is "users should be able to install the software they want on their computers" or "businesses offering apps and services should be able to compete with Apple on the iPhone". Is this a fundamentally a pro-user law or a pro-business law? There may be overlap, but they are not the same.
If there was alternatives Apple wouldn't be able to charge 30% anymore.
4 replies →
It is not a “mobile computer”. The fact that it has a CPU and other computer parts is an implementation detail (your dishwasher also probably has a CPU). If you want a mobile computer then buy one, don’t buy an iPhone, and don’t advocate for the government to force Apple to change how iPhones work for those of us who like them.
You are exactly describing the recent EU lawsuit
> The problem with Apple is not that they take a 30% cut of app sales in their store, or that they don't allow alternative browser engines or wallets apps or superapps or whatever in their store.
Nope, the problem very much is that they won't allow alternative browser engines, specifically so that they can force a crippled Safari browser with limited APIs to force people to write apps instead of web apps, forcing more traffic to their store. It's explicitly anti-competitive behavior.
>It's their store and they ought to be able to curate it however they like.
It's kind of forced fraud to call Chrome in iOS as "Chrome". It's like trying to sell someone a Ferrari that's just a facade bolted onto 2010 Honda. It's not Chrome, it's actually Safari - and its seems like people are finally starting to wake up to this abusive behavior that Apple has been getting away with for far too long.
Microsoft had a famous anti-trust case against them for simply bundling IE with Windows - not from forcing their engine on every other "browser" that gets installed. Apple is doing far worse than that and getting away with it for far too long.
>The problem is that users cannot reasonably install software through any means other than that single store.
That's one of the many other problems outlined by the DOJ today.
>The problem is that Apple reserves special permissions and system integrations for their own apps and denies them to anyone else.
Also another problem.
>However, these sorts of lawsuits or regulations that seek to force Apple to change App Store policies feel so wrong-headed and out of touch.
I was clapped out loud when I watched the DOJ announcement today. I cheered. They actually mentioned "Developers", which is a group I am part of, and I feel the pain that dealing with Apple and Safari is. Apple absolutely deserves this, and it's about time.
Sony and Microsoft obviously don’t benefit from opening up the platforms, it’s not just something they don’t care about but something they actively oppose, and they specifically ensured they got legislative exceptions to ensure they would never have to reciprocate under the DMA.
Your goals aren’t aligned, you’re just a useful idiot to them and they’ll cast you aside as soon as they no longer need you. The end result of the push isn’t going to be “free as in freedom” for everybody here, just Microsoft capturing 90% of a revenue stream instead of 70%.
Classic populism moment - but of course it’s “populism, but on the computer”.
Freedoms for users and freedom for business are two fundamentally opposed and conflicting goals, see: GPL vs MIT/BSD. And in their moment of victory, businesses will just steamroll right over you - just like they literally already did with consoles.
It’s just crazy that they have these exceptions when their own hardware is very much general-purpose on a technical level, and when they’re actively pushing to use that general-purpose capability to ensnare users with AI features and other crap.
Sony and Microsoft are two of the platforms that stand to gain the most from AI adoption literally purely on the basis of being closed platforms with proprietary APIs (plus a minimal amount of interop for embrace-extend-extinguish) with millions of active users and a captive audience of dev studios who have no choice but to use Sony and Microsoft’s closed, gatekept platforms.
Somehow the plight of poor little Larian being stepped on by Sony and Microsoft and Epic just doesn’t make the front page of HN like apple hate.
The game console exception in the DMA is very disappointing, but phones are the largest gaming platform regardless. As hardware improves and ownership becomes even more obligatory I suspect we will see more development effort focused there. I can only hope that F2P/Gacha game culture on mobile is destroyed by that point. Perhaps by anti-gambling laws?
> If people want to buy an iphone and shit it up, let them do it.
The next generation isn't necessarily choosing, though.
Their parents are giving into their demands for *an iPhone due to social pressures entirely originated by Apple's monopolistic behavior (iMessage green bubbles).
Then, when they're locked into the Apple ecosystem from the start, it's almost impossible to break out -- even if you grow up into a mature adult that doesn't give a shit about bubble colors.
Interoperability (being able to exit an ecosystem without massive downsides, specifically) between the only two parties in a de facto duopoly is absolutely necessary and morally right, and it's a shame market failures force the judiciary to intervene. But we are where we are and there's no use putting lipstick on a pig -- the system as it stands is broken, and if left alone will feed on itself and become even more broken.
> Their parents are giving into their demands for *an iPhone due to social pressures entirely originated by Apple's monopolistic behavior (iMessage green bubbles).
First of all, we don't have that problem here in europe. People just use cross-platform messengers.
Secondly, I don't understand why a company should be forced to bring its service to a platform it doesn't care about. Apple supports the default carrier messaging standards (SMS/MMS). It's not Apple's fault that they suck. In fact Apple explicitely created iMessage because SMS/MMS were absolutely terrible.
If RCS is considered a standard (is it?), then Apple should absolutely support it and apparently they plan to do so. Seems fine to me.
While I personally don't use iMessage I'd prefer it if the service was available everywhere, but I don't see why Apple should be forced to support other platforms. Just because iMessage is popular? Imagine a world where WhatsApp was either an iOS- or Android-exclusive app. Should they be forced to develop for a platform they don't care about too? What about popular iOS-exclusive apps like Things? What about Garageband or Logic? Or Super Mario games on Nintendo?
We also have a smaller percentage of iPhone users here in Europe.
Apple could have open up their API. Or not try to shut it down so hard when someone finds a way around to use their API
1 reply →
> I like the app store, I like the restrictions, I don't want apple to change anything about it.
This is basically saying you only use TikTok, Facebook, Instagram, YouTube, Spotify, Tinder, Gmail, Google Maps, and play zero to some handful of mega huge F2P games.
Why have an App Store at all then? You don't use it. It's an installation wizard for you, not a store.
Don't you see? This stuff doesn't interact with restrictions at all. The problem with the App Store is that it sucks, not that it's restricted.
> making their app store worse
I've heard this take from so many people. It is already as bad as it gets. The App Store is an utter disaster. They have failed in every aspect to make a thriving ecosystem. It is just the absolute largest, hugest, best capitalized, least innovative apps and games.
This doesn't have to be the case at all. Look at Steam. Even Linux package managers have more diversity with more apps that thrive.
For your first point that is a fairly wild accusation of that user.
For me, one of the features of a centralised app store is that I buy and subscribe to apps through the app store, which centralises my app subscriptions within my Apple account. I wouldn't have this functionality if I was pulling in apps outside of the app store.
I can go into my Apple account and see every subscription I have and cancel it from within. No shoddy dark website behavior that makes it hard to unsubscribe, I can do it all there.
This just one feature that I find handy in having a single store.
If Apple had your best interests in mind they would provide a way to integrate third party payment systems into their management interface so all apps could expose their subscriptions to the user in a consistent way regardless of payment backend. Instead they will keep it as an exclusive feature and point to other processors' lack of compatibility as a harm to end-users inflicted by the DMA. They would rather have a talking point in their ongoing temper tantrum than provide a good experience for their users.
3 replies →
[dead]
Same here. I use linux VMs and containers for all my "hacking" where I need total control and customizability of the OS. On my workstation and phone, where I do my banking and read emails, I'm willing to trade control and customizability for an extremely locked down high trust operating environment. I feel like Apple's closed ecosystem, despite all its flaws, gets this compromise right.
> I use linux VMs and containers for all my "hacking" where I need total control and customizability of the OS
> On my workstation and phone, where I do my banking and read emails, I'm willing to trade control and customizability for an extremely locked down high trust operating environment.
Excuse my French, but uh what? A browser accessing a bank in a Linux virtual machine running on bare metal is by far more secure than desktop MacOS running on bare metal.
At the end of the day, for the activity you described (browsing), what you must be able to defend against is the inherent insecurity of the browser. Linux provides all manners of process, network, etc isolation via CGroups and can be enhanced by SecComp to limit the usage of typical exotic syscalls used in kernel exploits.
MacOS has what for that? The best opportunity you have for defense is to run qemu so that you can run... Linux. The corporation you work for doesn't use Apple because of their stellar security posture, it uses Apple because they can buy mobile devices (phones, laptops) preconfigured with MDM which saves a lot of money.
> Excuse my French, but uh what? A browser accessing a bank in a Linux virtual machine running on bare metal is by far more secure than desktop MacOS running on bare metal.
Facts are most definitely not in evidence for this claim.
> MacOS has what for that?
It has sandboxing, which does all that stuff.
(iOS has even more, like JIT protections.)
I'd kill for an Apple-sanctioned way to load Linux VMs on my iPad and have them run at full speed. It's got an M1 in it, the virtualization hardware is there, Apple just doesn't want me using it.
As it currently stands, the options for Linux VMs on an iPad are:
- iSH, a Linux kernel ABI compatible user-mode x86 emulator that uses threaded code (ROP chains) as a substitute for a proper JIT, but doesn't support all x86 applications[0].
- UTM, a port of QEMU that requires JIT (and thus, either an external debugger or a jailbreak) to run a full x86 or ARM OS.
- UTM SE (Slow Edition), which is UTM but using the threaded code technique from iSH, which is not only slower than iSH because it runs both kernel and user mode, but also got banned from TestFlight before they could even make an App Store submission (probably because it can get to a desktop while iSH can't).
All of these suck in different ways.
[0] Notably, rustc gives an illegal instruction error and mysql crashes trying to do unaligned atomics
Nothing like arguing against software freedom because of "checks notes", security by obscurity. I thought I'd read higher effort content on HN.
I don't buy into this narrative. I have a Pixel phone, you can do quite a lot of privacy "hardening" just by going over the Google settings and turning off a lot of tracking (which they were probably forced to put in by regulators). The rest you can achieve by using Firefox instead of Chrome and choose a different search engine.
I get a lot of hard to solve Google CAPTCHA on many websites I visit so I know Google is having a hard time tracking me :-)
In terms of security, I don't think Pixel is less secure than the iPhone. It gets security updates regularly, Google invests a lot in security and I don't think the Pixel has more zero days than the iPhone...
So all in all, I don't buy into the "iPhone is more secure and handles your privacy better than Android" narrative
You don't do banking on a laptop?
Nerd here who started on MS-DOS and later spent nearly a decade running Linux on a laptop as my main computing device. Gentoo, for about half that time. Various other stuff in between, developed software targeting probably a seven or eight different operating systems and/or platforms, et c., et c. I've got a reasonable amount of computer-dork cred, is the point, though around these parts, nothing all that remarkable.
Very nearly every halfway serious computer-involved activity I do these days (=last seven or eight years) that matters in my actual, real life takes place on my phone, including approximately all banking. All the other computers—even the "real" ones—in my life are basically toys. 90% of my real-life important or meaningful stuff I do with computers happens on my phone, 9% on a tablet, and at-most 1% on everything else.
(in my personal life, I mean—unfortunately I still have to try to use "real" computers to accomplish allegedly-important things at work)
Not often, no. What’s banking in this context mean for you? I’m assuming viewing accounts and depositing checks?
1 reply →
Do banks have mobile check deposit on a laptop? I don't think mine does.
Is Macbook less secure because I can install whatever app I want, even my own app? No, it's not. I want to be able to do the same with my iPhone. It's as simple as that.
Well, yes, it is less secure. Though Apple has been adding more restrictions around apps having full disk access and stuff.
And yet no one would ever want or think of locking down MacOS like they have locked down iOS. Turns out that grown ups don't need Apple to babysit them for additional "security" when everybody knows that Apple's real reason is just money+greed and the "security" talking point is just a convenient smokescreen.
22 replies →
I don't even let my users have browser extensions without them going through the formal review process. Managing the proliferation of PWAs (potentially unwanted apps) is one of the most unsolvable issues in security. iOS is the gold standard for secure mobile computing due to inability to support alot of these risky use causes.
> we’ve removed all features in the name of security
Wow, gold standard for sure. Is this why iOS zero day costs less than Android one?
https://zerodium.com/program.html
4 replies →
Yes it is, it just isn’t as big of a target for bad actors because it’s a much less personal device with way fewer users.
It’s definitely less secure. IMO that’s an acceptable tradeoff but it’s still true that MacOS allows you to install potentially harmful software in a way that an iPhone doesn’t. With great power comes great responsibility and all.
The problem is that "less secure" is not exactly meaningful without a lot of clarifications.
I'm no security expert, but I know that security is certainly not a linear, at the very least it's some multi-dimensional thing that's exceptionally hard to generalize.
One system can be more or less secure than another for some party or parties, for some particular threat models if you can or cannot install certain apps, etc etc. Skipping all those bits makes the statement vague, increasing the risk of misunderstanding of the implied conditions.
Just a quick example. Installing an app could paradoxically make the device simultaneously more and less secure for the owner. Let's say it's an advanced firewall app. On the one hand it improves the network hygiene, improving the device security against its network peers. On the other hand, it may help in compromising the device, if someone gains access to its control interface and exploits it for nefarious purposes.
Whether or not it's more secure is moot as far as Apple's concerned. For them it's about control of the market, not device security.
[dead]
If you want to treat your phone like a general-purpose computer, that's fine, but the iPhone doesn't work that way, very much by design. I understand that you want a different user experience, but them's the breaks.
Yes. That’s why there is substantially more malware for Mac than iPhone despite iPhone having far, far more users.
Of course it's less secure.
Objectively, yes.
[dead]
It is. That's why I do all of my banking on iOS.
That's the biggest thing, allowing sideloading is 100% optional and lets people stay in the walled garden if they want. Apple not allowing it is absolutely about suppressing competition, which given their >50% market share is a blatant abuse of their monopoly.
I can’t wait for every data hoarding app (Facebook, Reddit, Google) to require sideloading so now we’ll have the choice to either use Android or Apple when being tracked down to granular details.
I want it to be semi onerous to enable apps outside the App Store, for this reason.
Sideloading is already a thing on Android, and I am not forced to use these apps to use the Android ecosystem. Mind you there are certain phone manufacturers who pack their phone full of crap, but I have a large selection of Android phones to choose from to avoid that. Even Google doesn't force me to use their app store.
1 reply →
The real question is : is it Apple’s role to protect people against Facebook or Google ? I mean, if you want to be protected against Facebook, just delete the app.
It’s the role of regulators to stop data hoarding.
Also this narrative is complete bullshit from Apple since those protections never came from App Store’s policies enforcement but from iOS sandboxing mechanisms which are not going to disappear for sideloaded apps.
I’m pretty amazed that on HN, of all the places, people still believe the narrative that the Apple reviewing process can enforce app behavior while all they’ve got to review is a binary. The App Store reviewing is just there to check if you are loyal into Apple.
2 replies →
The great thing about allowing sideloading is that it enables the community to build 3rd party apps for accessing services like Facebook, even though doing so violates the service's ToS. You can't put a lightweight and tracking-resistant FB client in the App Store.
2 replies →
How much does Apple's privacy restrictions affect a company the size of Meta ?
Sure, there was the direct commercial impact the moment the changes were implemented. But Meta is still doing the same business, it still keeps track of a tremendous amount of user data, and it's revenue is back to where it was before Apple's changes.
Same for Google or Reddit, they are in a position where Apple limiting their tracking range seem to have little to no impact on their whole business.
I still think some limitation is better than none, but it also doesn't look like a huge deal for any of them. At least not enough to force all users to go through sideloading just to get that extra bit of data.
If you're so scared of Facebook, don't use it. Trotting it out as a scare tactic is just whataboutism, considering the scenario you're paranoid about hasn't happened on Android, macOS, etc.
Don't use said data hoarding apps, then? Or use the web versions?
This FUD remains as if they don't know situation on Android.
Just how it happened on Android! Oh, wait…
Doubtful, Google got dinged pretty hard in part because there were too many steps to allow other app stores to exist, and becsuse app stores couldn't auto-update apps like Google Play could.
And all that is way easier than rooting/jailbreaking. I doubt that will be enough of a deterrent considering the anti-trust angle being that you can't compete with apple's native software
No Google got dinged because they claimed their ecosystem was “open” and changed it after the fact.
The reason that Google lost the same type of cases that Apple won was because consumers knew iOS was closed before they bought it.
Do you prefer not being able to send or recieve good quality images and videos to anyone using Android?
> Do you prefer not being able to send or recieve good quality images and videos to anyone using Android?
Bit confused by this. What prevents me from sending or receiving good quality images to/from Android users?
When friends with iPhones send me images or videos using iMessage, they are very low-quality compared to what iPhone users receive. But when Android users send me the same, they are higher quality.
So I think the specific answer to your question is "iMessage and its lack of support for <protocol (RCS?)>".
9 replies →
By default was missing from the sentence. You can do it with Whatsapp etc, but both you and the other party need to download a 3rd party app to do so.
15 replies →
Lack of iMessage support on Android.
2 replies →
I guess there’s WhatsApp etc, but it’s not a great experience. And that’s in part due to the ecosystem. I can swipe 200 photos and send them to my wife - it shares them on my iCloud behind the scenes, and sends a link. Messages makes it seem like I’ve sent 200 full quality photos in an instant.
That’s hard to do without the vertical integration.
In the UK nearly everyone is using Whatsapp (or Signal, Telegram, even FB Messenger - never iMessage) and it's completely fine.
1 reply →
I don’t think you can send images to friends on Xbox from a PS5, no? How is that different?
That argument would make sense of iPhone couldn't send any messages at all to Android or call Android phones.
There's a reason Apple hasn't taken their garden wall that far, lmao. Same as being able to use "non Apple WiFi and Bluetooth devices".
Half the replies in this thread make me think they'd be happy if Apple restricted iPhone WiFi to only connecting to Apple APs becuz muh security, muh feature ecosystem
I do this every day using WhatsApp.
> they should just let people jail break the phone and offer zero support for it
That would be significantly more fair to the end users than the current status quo, if they won't intentionally make obstacles for those users.
Obviously, that's not happening.
Note there could easily be even more obstacles than there are. Third party apps like banking apps actually have extra jailbreaking checks; first party apps don't, you can still watch DRM movies, and afaik it doesn't void the warranty. At least not if nobody notices.
If they would only verify quality and provide safe APIs and paths to safely integrate they can have their platform. The issue is that they are both managing the plantform and (unfairly) participating themselves.
If they had one set of APIs for smartwatches that can be used by them for the apple watch and everyone else for their smartwatches they wouldn’t get sued. But instead they give themselves deep integration into the OS and limit everyone elses access. When you are one of the only available platforms thats not okay.
Stay within store, nobody forces you to sideload or download certain apps.
You and I will do this. So will anyone else on HN.
My grandma won’t understand the difference. So when she gets a text saying, hey install this cool new thing, and then gets hacked, these changes will be to blame.
Why can’t we have a close ecosystem and an open ecosystem? If you want to side load, Android is right there ready for you.
How will she install it if it is behind security toggle?
16 replies →
I like the iPhone in general but there’s a ton of things I need to keep an old Android around for, because of functionality apple blocks for no good reason: connecting to many non approved bluetooth devices, vehicle gauges and other useful driving data in carplay, etc.
Does this chain of thought apply to any company or just to Apple? At what market share does this become a problem in your opinion? Or are we assuming that the market is ‘free’ and people wouldn’t buy such a device/service because of these ‘restrictions’?
The suit is not about user choice between iPhone and Android. The suit is about control 60% of the digital market. Sure, a user can go buy a different phone. But, an App developer can not reasonable not support iPhone given it has 60% of the market and apple requires 30% of all digital transactions on that market.
I agree people should be able to choose different things. But I also agree with the suit, that once someone gets in the position to control the market of 1000s and 1000s of companies, it's not longer just about user choice in phones. It's about the digital goods (apps/subscribtions/IaP) market itself.
None of these require allowing alternative app stores. Just allowing more apps in. You don’t have to use these apps, and theres nothing inherently insecure about it.
> I sort of think apple shouldn't try to comply
I know some of us like to think of Apple as some kind of corporate diety, but even Apple has to answer to the US government.
I agree with this take. My one concern is it has the potential to diminish the entire brand. Even with giant warnings about losing warranty/support when installing 3rd party app stores or side loading apps, at the end of the day the back of the phone has a big Apple logo on it. So when the customer fucks it up and Apple refuses to fix it, they’ll still blame Apple.
If consumers find that's a problem, then they should be willing to pay the 30% premium in the app store.
My guess is that this is not as much of an issue as Apple claims, and this 30% premium will not be worth it to the consumer.
I think plenty of software development companies quite like to keep that 30% to themselves. I could imagine Microsoft, Adobe and others refusing to ship their software on the app store at all if using their own store let them keep more of the purchase price.
Apple's hardware house of cards might come down if developers are allowed to push the devices past what Apple allows due to form-over-function design decisions they make, and I'm okay with that.
If you're concerned about the brand value then sell your stock before it happens or buy some put options at a nice price.
That is the right way to think about it.
If your walled garden (App Store) is really better, people will stay in it voluntarily.
Yeah exactly, for some of us this is a feature not a bug. And I say this as a customer that also supports open source software. Yes it's possible to support both.
Like damn, what if I intend to build this ecosystem from the outset, does that mean as soon as it reaches critical mass the government is going to come in and dismantle it? It's bullshit. This is essentially saying you're not allowed to build ecosystems.
Consumer products don't demand the same flexibility in this regard that enterprise products do. This is just other companies crying that they want a slice of the pie.
Companies are not allowed to leverage their dominant market position in one market in order to gain an advantage in other markets. If you dislike monopoly and antitrust laws, go vote against them.
I’m familiar with the concept and it doesn’t apply as clearly as you make it seem to here, which is why it’s taken so long to sue Apple.
Their ecosystem was closed from the beginning.
Mostly agree with this except for "... and offer zero support for it."
Nope, that's covered by basic consumer protections. Apple still has to offer support if the user has issues that weren't likely to have been caused by the modifications.
Your car maker doesn't get to refuse to honor your powertrain warranty just because you put in a custom stereo.
> offer zero support for it.
If only they had it left it there.
I'm sure this comment will get downvoted and dunked on, but I agree and I would be that if Apple is forced to make changes like these, many peoples' only experience of it would be their iPhone/Apple Watch/etc getting worse.
Some examples:
I think many computer savvy people don't realize how freeing and liberating it is for normal people to have an "appliance" computer.
Please let governments pass legislation which mandate a manual trasmission model. I will never buy an auto!
Except that Apple are literally the richest company in America. They could hire a thousand new programmers in a team to work 24 hours a day on these requirements and it wouldn't even tickle their profits, let alone revenue.
If apple is forced to open up, it creates a market for more security products, meaning healthier competition and more transparent security.
Not really, safari is the only browser which is installed on a iphone by default, so normal users just use it like they did before and dont need to do anything. However other people that do want to use something different are free to.
Nobody is suggesting making the iphone harder to use, just allowing additional choices if thats what the user wants. The choices can be hidden away from normal users and grandma, but why cant they be there in the background for people that want them?
> If apple is forced to open up, it creates a market for more security products, meaning healthier competition and more transparent security.
Have you not had to use a third party security product on your work computer? All third party security products for computers are scams and inefficient
Adding more choices, especially for fundamental stuff like we're discussing here, actually literally does make the device harder to use.
2 replies →
> - Every dollar and engineering hour that Apple spends complying with these new requirements is time they won't spend on things people actually want, as well as increasing the surface area for bugs and security holes.
Small indie company, btw.
Explain how.
This seems a baseless statement.
nothing changes for you, keep living in apple prison. how does other people having more choice make your experience worse? all arguments I heard so far are completely far fetched and contrived scenarios that dont amount to anything but fear mongering.
Every time I refresh you keep adding more contrived BS excuses to allow the trillion dollar company to keep extorting devs and users with obscene fees.
" - A lot of these changes are like mandating that cars have a manual transmission option. Sure, there are plenty of people that love the control, but there are many, many more that appreciate not having to deal with it."
Nonsense analogy. Computers are General Purpose Computing Devices which people increasingly depend on in their lives where single point of control from Apple makes their lives artificially more difficult solely for the purpose of being able to squeeze out profits. It increases prices for consumers and allows oppressive dictatorships to demand certain apps to be removed and Apple always complies, leaving users without alternatives.
" - Every dollar and engineering hour that Apple spends complying with these new requirements is time they won't spend on things people actually want, as well as increasing the surface area for bugs and security holes."
Boohoo, the trillion dollar company has to do a little more work. They could just stop putting so much work into anti-consumer propaganda so they would have more time for actual work.
"- Apple is the intermediary between other companies like FB, Google, ad networks, data harvesting, government apps, etc. They can't do things on my phone because Apple forbids it. The more Apple is forced to open up, the less protection I have from other powerful players in the tech market."
This is exactly the kind of exaggerated, fear mongering narrative I've expected. Increased competition and openness could also lead to better privacy and security solutions as companies would need to compete on these features to win over users. Also, despite Apple's policies and safeguards, there have been instances where apps have found ways around these limitations or have used data in ways that are not transparent to users, because Apple only cares about Privacy as far as it benefits their bottom line, that why Apple also started to work on an advertising platform. They care about "Privacy" because now they can exclusively monetize user data.[Apple is becoming an ad company despite privacy claims - https://proton.me/blog/apple-ad-company]
" - Every place where Apple is forced to open up is a place where there's a choice that many users didn't ask for but will have to make (e.g. default browser)."
Nonsense, the only thing that changes is that other people can change the default app, so when they don't care nothing changes for them, they don't have to do anything. this argument of yours is the kind of absurd reach that makes your overall position look absurd.
" - I've never had to help a relative with their phone. I've had many of them come to me for help with their computers. Their and my experience with computing platforms is worse without the guardrails"
I've read this meme so many times and every time I read it I doubt that it's an actual thing instead it's something you desperately need to say in order to uphold your indefensible position of defending Apple's anti-competitive practices. It's not a good argument either, just because your relatives are incompetent we all should suffer under that?
" I think many computer savvy people don't realize how freeing and liberating it is for normal people to have an "appliance" computer."
Ah yes, less choice is actually more choice, slavery is freedom and war is peace.
It doesn't matter if you like it. It doesn't matter if you don't like it. What matters is their actions and behavior are against the law. It can be proven,/according to the US Gov.
>If people want to buy an iphone and shit it up, let them do it.
Those choices also affect me, though. Any shared albums, messages or other data I transmit with these users has a higher risk of being leaked.
There's some security in knowing almost all phones are not jailbroken and thanks to regular os upgrades, have a pretty solid security floor.
One way to handle this would be to decorate the comms ID, email / phone name whatever to show they aren't running a standard iOS. But I would want to know as easily as I do that messages I exchange with someone are going to an android device.
>One way to handle this would be to decorate the comms ID, email / phone name whatever to show they aren't running a standard iOS.
I shudder to imagine the headlines complaining about the "scarlet bubbles apple is using to shame freedom loving users" or whatever nonsense the media would scare up if they tried to do something like that.
Yes exactly. If Apple allowed users to download alternative app stores or directly install apps, none of this would be a problem.
You know that nobody forces you to use features you don't want to, right?
if you like your prison, that's your thing, you have the right to stay in it, just don't force other people to live in misery under your preferences when they'd rather live in freedom. we also have rules and regulations which decide if something is lawful or not, so it's not just about what you personally like or not.
No one is forcing anyone to buy an iPhone. You still have that choice, you just want to force someone else to make another choice. It's hypocritical.
> they should just let people jail break the phone and offer zero support for it.
Just let people wipe the phone completely - no drivers, no kernel, nothing, and bring their own. That's the proper solution to people wanting to own their hardware and do whatever they want with it. Want to install a different app store/browser/etc? Go for it, start by installing the new kernel and drivers.
Here's my take on the App store:
Almost none of the "free" apps are actually free. However, the App store makes it impossible to find this out without first supplying credit card information and installing the app, and possibly setting up an account with an app.
It used to be great. Frankly, it's now abusive.