It doesn't harm Google's Play store profits so why would it harm Apple? Plus any sales on any store owes California taxes when someone in California actually made the purchase. So again this all falls flat on it's face.
It's baffling that on HN of all places I see people actively making this argument that you should NOT be able to install whatever the hell you want on your personal pocket computer that just happens to have an Apple logo on it. It doesn't make you more secure. It just doesn't. A locked down operating system quite literally makes you LESS secure because there's fewer people poking holes.
The ubiquity of Apple devices makes them a gigantic target for hackers.
As a developer I own both devices but the iPhone I have is quite literally a really really nice toy. All the apps I use are free. It's literally a social networking box with an excellent camera.
Meanwhile my Android does the exact same thing but I install and use open source apps on it to read manga that are simply not available on iOS.
"It's baffling that on HN of all places I see people actively making this argument that you should NOT be able to install whatever the hell you want on your personal pocket computer"
The community famous for 'mah free market' does not believe in your right to control your private property, its a paradox. Up there with 'freedom of speech' people burning books.
> They JUST a few days ago patched a critical zero day.
That neither supports nor refutes your point.
First:
Almost all useful software gets patched frequently, from closed source things like Duolingo (and wow, do I wish I could edit that app’s code to get rid of the animations and the news tab and a few other things), to entirely permissive open-source projects like most of any Linux distro.
Better would be a comparison of the black market cost of zero-days. It’s been a while since I heard news about them (and I have not only no inclination but also don’t even know where to go to find ground-truth info), but a while ago that was Apple 0-days being cheaper than Android ones, i.e. implying they were more common.
If that’s still true, that would support your point.
Second:
One of these is about the apps, the other is about the OS itself, the only overlap is the OS refusing to let you install arbitrary apps.
Except you can install arbitrary apps on iOS in much the same way you can install them on Linux: get the source code and compile yourself, just (unlike e.g. Steam on Linux) there are no convenient pre-compiled app stores besides Apple’s.
> Except you can install arbitrary apps on iOS in much the same way you can install them on Linux: get the source code and compile yourself
Sort of. You can do this, but only for three apps at a time. And you have to be tethered to a PC that does the compiling. And you have to validate your credentials with Apple online for them to let you sign the app (which is required for running it on your phone). And the app will refuse to open after seven days have passed.
The three app limit is lifted and seven day killswitch changed to a 365 day one if you pay Apple $100 annually. Even then the other restrictions remain, so you can't, for instance, have your apps auto-update.
Compare to Android, where you can download an f-droid.apk, hit a switch or two in your settings, and get untethered app installs with semi-automatic updates. Unfortunately Android restricts fully automatic updates to preinstalled stores.
Imagine an F-Droid for iOS, with or without automatic updates. Not having to pay the $99 fee per year to keep apps in the App Store would encourage many developers to publish free and open source apps, expanding the selection of ad-free apps for iOS users. Not being beholden to App Store rules means that useful apps like NewPipe, apps banned by certain governments, and apps with GPL licensing conflicts would finally be made available to iOS users again.
As a citizen and consumer I agree with your perspective, but as a developer I'm starting to wonder where the public/private line is being drawn in everyone's mind.
The whole "does twitter owe someone a platform" conversation is fascinating.
> The whole "does twitter owe someone a platform" conversation is fascinating.
It seems to reduce to bickering about the perception of a fuzzy line. My back yard is not a public space. A government owned city park is a public space. What if that park was owned by a private corporation but left open to the public? What if all the parks in the city were owned by the same private corporation? Clearly there's more to "public vs private" than just ownership but where exactly should we draw the line?
I find it tiring as opposed to fascinating. It distracts from the real issue. Why such reliance on centralized walled garden communication infrastructure? At the core, how is Twitter functionally different from sending emails to a public listserv in the 90s? How is following an account different from polling an RSS feed?
Sometimes it really seems like we're moving backwards, all the while loudly arguing over the precise direction to cede ground in. Has anyone perhaps considered going forward instead?
To me it's a consumer rights issue. Apple shouldn't have any say what I can and can't install on my device. It would be like if Tesla made you sign an EULA for your car that prevented you from putting on your own tires and instead you were required to use Tesla ones. In the car market "for your safety" is an even stronger argument and yet everyone can see straight through that argument. Freedom has been under assault in computing now for the last 20 years and for some reason there's a loud contingent of nerds cheering it on. It really is baffling to me. The absolute best and exciting time for me for iOS was when people jailbroke their phones and used Cydia. Now it's just a bland corporate sell out of an operating system.
"In the car market "for your safety" is an even stronger argument and yet everyone can see straight through that argument. Freedom has been under assault in computing now for the last 20 years"
Our computer companies have stopped selling parts for repair because 'safety' but any housewife can buy breaks or engine block and offer a commercial repair service without any training or certification
If the majority of the populace uses these devices as the primary means of communication with the internet and everything it essentially becomes a public platform.
It's baffling that on HN of all places I see people actively making this argument that you should NOT be able to install whatever the hell you want on your personal pocket computer that just happens to have an Apple logo on it. It doesn't make you more secure. It just doesn't. A locked down operating system quite literally makes you LESS secure because there's fewer people poking holes.
They JUST a few days ago patched a critical zero day. https://www.bleepingcomputer.com/news/apple/apple-silently-f...
The ubiquity of Apple devices makes them a gigantic target for hackers.
As a developer I own both devices but the iPhone I have is quite literally a really really nice toy. All the apps I use are free. It's literally a social networking box with an excellent camera.
Meanwhile my Android does the exact same thing but I install and use open source apps on it to read manga that are simply not available on iOS.