Comment by epolanski
2 years ago
The number of people opposing these changes in this thread because "it will make their walled garden experience worse" without being able to bring up a single valid reason why would that be is astonishing.
2 years ago
The number of people opposing these changes in this thread because "it will make their walled garden experience worse" without being able to bring up a single valid reason why would that be is astonishing.
I think we should lead with the fact that cell phones became the new personal computing device and they should be turn into open platforms, like computers. But the same thing should apply to gaming consoles, TVs, and other software heavy platforms as well. Otherwise, it sounds like an arbitrary anti-Apple regulation, not pro-consumer or pro-free-market regulation.
My one fear for this is the leverage it gives large tech companies.
What's to stop Microsoft, Meta, or Amazon from forcing you to download their own app store to use their apps? We kind of see this on PC already with every company having their own game or app store.
When Chrome is on iOS and is pushed on every Google search, what happens to health of the web? Does that create a new web monopoly?
It's not totally fair that Apple gives themselves special permissions and blocks competitors, or forces the prices they do from devs who would otherwise sell their apps through their website, but is that the lesser of two evils?
> What's to stop Microsoft, Meta, or Amazon from forcing you to download their own app store to use their apps?
Like Apple does now, except for every app.
> We kind of see this on PC already with every company having their own game or app store.
No we don't. Those are fringe and mostly unsuccessful. And even then, those companies should not have to pay 30% of their revenue to steam, so fuck that.
> When Chrome is on iOS and is pushed on every Google search, what happens to health of the web? Does that create a new web monopoly?
Forcing everyone to use Safari is a web monopoly.
Yeah, Amazon make their own App Store for Android that I assume nobody uses outside of Fire devices because it’s terrible. They still make their apps available on the Google Play store, so this theoretical concern seems like it will remain theoretical.
MobileSafari is currently the only thing preventing a Chromium web monopoly.
1 reply →
I don't see how any of the things you describe is necessarily a bad thing for users.
And if other large tech companies (as if Apple wasn't one of the biggest monopolies itself) have to be broken down, so be it. I too consider companies like Google way too big.
But as a user, and a small developer, I have more pressing issues with the iOS ecosystem than "what ifs" about Google.
Apple is such boring stagnant soulless void, I don't know why people wouldn't want it chopped up just to see the component parts trying to innovate again.
What have they done in the last few years? Minor incremental updates to existing products, release another screen-strapped-to-face product years late to the party while also failing to figure out what to do in the software space to justify the device, and started issuing credit cards because they needed to branch out from just getting a cut of all sales that happen on-platform.
Apple Silicon Macs. Aside from that, yes very boring, especially the silly stuff like watches, pencils, and credit cards. That said, I'd rather our country respect private property, also it's not like there's a ton more innovation left in these spaces anyway.
in my experience it often boils down to: "won't somebody think of my elderly relatives"
as if iOS prevents them from being scammed or giving away sensitive info in a meaningful way that macOS does not
1. Allowing other app stores would immediately mean each app wanting you to go to a separate store. I barely use apps in the first place but would imagine this being bothersome for those who use them a lot.
2. I don't want my phone to run arbitrary code, that's what my Mac is for. People install unknown third-party apps on their iPhones all the time, which is safe enough. Now imagine Apple was forced to make iPhones more like Macs in this respect. When was the last time you installed an unknown third-party Mac app?
3. If the govt does something along the lines of preventing Apple from pre-installing their own apps, or some other way of forcibly informing users that they have alternatives, that's annoying for anyone who uses those default apps anyway.
4. Forcibly opening the iMessage protocol could lead to more spam or hold up Apple adding new features that Android doesn't support. And Apple is going to adopt RCS anyway.
5. Govt regulations on software have historically not done much good for regular users. GDPR got us modal cookie notifications on every site, which some nerds really liked along with the takeout stuff, but most people saw as useless and annoying. Plenty of iPhone users are happy with the status quo.
> 2. I don't want my phone to run arbitrary code, that's what my Mac is for.
Then don't run it. Personally, I want all my devices that run third-party software to have strong sandboxing and defense-in-depth security. Even apps from developers I trust and admire can be compromised due to vulnerabilities and other types of attack.
> 1. Allowing other app stores would immediately mean each app wanting you to go to a separate store. I barely use apps in the first place but would imagine this being bothersome for those who use them a lot.
Except Android allows other stores since forever and that didn't happen so this is proven to be an incorrect assumption.
I see this and other blatantly wrong, easily verifiable, takes so often that I wonder if those who write even know how things work in Android or they just live in an iOS bubble and assume things about Android.
Android heavily warns users against installing those, which might not fly if the ruling is to treat them equally. Despite that, a major app Fortnite is only available via the Epic Games store on Android.
2 replies →
Ok here's one big one:
Today the development process inside Apple treats the full software stack, from underlying OS to the homescreen UI (SpringBoard) to the user-facing apps (built-in or not), as a virtual monolithic system. All these gets built and integrated every day, leading up to each iOS (and MacOS) release. This allows new features to be released which are integrated together across many apps. This is what the people come to know as "The Apple Experience." When your phone does its big iOS update overnight, you get all the new features together.
Critically, these iOS updates can introduce any number of breaking changes to their internal APIs, databases, protocols, configuration files, etc. The daily integration and daily testing is responsible for making sure the final product still Just Works.
If the government gets its way here, Apple would be forced to develop all the built-in apps using public APIs, and would need to make sure those APIs don't ever break -- or else risk another "uncompetitive behavior" lawsuit.
Could that be made to work? Sure. But then the overall Apple Experience would very likely be worsened, as Apple would not be able to make certain breaking changes any more, and would overall move slower due to having to carry all the external apps along with any internal plans. The experience of Apple customers becomes worse because some people want it to mimic Android's model.
So the best argument you can come up with is that there will need to be less API breaking changes less often?
No that’s not it at all. Perhaps you don’t understand how Apple builds its software. It is essentially one giant software product that undergoes CI every day until launch, when all the new apps and features are released together. This unification is only feasible in a closed system, and forcing Apple to open all the internals (APIs, datastores, etc) to third parties would prevent Apple from delivering the kind of user experience it does today.
This lawsuit is anti-consumer.