And many of us do. I would never buy a locked-down piece of hardware like that. But I don't think it matters either way what either side wants, because it's what Apple wants that matters. They want to keep their walled garden's walls air tight, and there are apparently enough people that are OK living in that garden that it works.
I'm positive that they have done the calculus that they'll make more money in the long/short term by behaving this way. Google did a similar calculus, with a different set of values (if not an entirely different set of variables altogether) and came up with a different answer. Although it's interesting to see how their position has shifted over the years to be a bit more like Apple in some regards. Regardless, the point is they don't care what you want once they've gotten to the point of getting your money. Past that, they only care about maximizing their profit.
So even though I wish iPhone would become more open, I find it strange that people are saying that we must break the iPhones App Store requirement to increase choice, even though that removes the choice to have a safer but locked down experience from the market.
Admittedly, the same problems exist on the App Store, but not to the same why-even-try level of anything goes.
The amount of kids apps, that are marketed as kids apps, certified as age appropriate, then contain ads for zombie gorefest horror was enough to make me give up trying with Android entirely.
I have every confidence Google will eventually address this (if they haven’t already in the intervening years).
In the meantime while I dislike how restrictive iOS is I’ve begrudgingly come to accept that I need it that way, at least until my kids are older.
That said, it's not clear if Apple will win or lose this Epic suit, so who knows what happens after that if they do?
The bottom line is that the internet is scary, and your kids are growing up faster than any generation before. The more you try to interfere with stuff like this, the more animosity they'll perceive in your relationship.
This is a false dilemma. You can have both.
That said, here's a challenge for everybody (including myself) who doesn't like Apple's app store monopoly and side-loading ban:
Apple now requires apps to ask for permission before tracking users. Facebook is _very_ unhappy about that. Imagine what would have happened if alternative app stores were allowed on iOS.
How long would it take before a Facebook/Google sponsored app store would emerge that would carry all ad funded apps? How would you prevent this from happening?
Apple does all that for you. That's why they win. "General purpose computing" is for nerds -- ordinary people would much rather have an iPhone.
Sure this would complicate things a bit (Apple would have to have different keys for different hardware revisions), but it would allow devices to be "officially" jailbroken after support ends.
Windows Phone is dead. And what happens if Android decides to be like Apple and lock down sideloading more? There is nothing forcing them to continue allowing this "freedom of choice" for consumers if they decide it would be better for their bottom line.
So, what would be the next best choice after Android in that scenario? Basically nothing, because smartphone operating systems are a duopoly.
> So even though I wish iPhone would become more open, I find it strange that people are saying that we must break the iPhones App Store requirement to increase choice, even though that removes the choice to have a safer but locked down experience from the market.
I know many people (including Apple) prefer the iPhone ecosystem to be more locked down, but given the market realities (monopoly) it seems like a compromise would make more sense than forcing everyone to pay 30% and lose out on things like cloud gaming, emulation, "objectionable" content, etc. to cater to the lowest common denominator.
A few possible compromises that Apple likely will never agree to without being forced to via regulation:
- Apple could probably keep the singular App Store model, but lower their fee to closer to cost, add more types of parental controls and/or special "expert only" areas of the store. This way they are more of a neutral hosting platform that still enforces security via app review (frankly, if they had done this to begin with, people probably would have let the whole singular App Store thing slide).
- Apple could allow alternate payment processors and let the user decide if they want the convenience of Apple Pay vs alternatives. This would let the market dictate the real value of their IAP infra. (Hell - at least let subscription apps link to their web site to purchase if they don't want to do IAP! This seems highly anti-competitive.)
- Apple could allow federated third party app stores to enforce certain levels of spam and security prevention (even off the App Store) - if one of these trusted third party app stores falls short in terms of security they get removed.
- Apple could just go the Android route and allow sideloading, but put it behind a ton of warnings etc. Continued investment in app sandboxing and permission prompts for each and every app would already do a lot to cut down on straight-up malware. Phishing, scams, etc. are already an issue for iPhone users in the browser or email clients (plus we've seen these kinds of things on the App Store as well), so user education on how to deal with these things is already unavoidable.
I think it's fair for us as consumers to demand more from Apple and want both security and freedom with reasonable tradeoffs.
And I'm not even talking about transforming an iPhone into a potentially open computer, but here too the same principle can be applied: if it is optional, it is something more, not less. The UX can be made good enough to actually have your cake and eat it, see Chromebooks.
The same could apply with app stores—if a company, school, or other requires that you use an app that is only available on a less privacy-friendly or perhaps more intrusive app store, that doesn't sound like an optional/risk-free alternative to me. Once you open the walls there's no going back.
"Your iPhone is out of date. Tap here to install the latest security tools to stop hackers from stealing your bank account"
By default Apple devices phone home and collect data on you, and this is not optional, and they will hand that data to law enforcement. They also have the ability to change their data handling policieson a whim since there is nobody holding them accountable. THIS IS NOT PRIVACY.
Not that windows or android devices are better as they come out of the box, but at least any computer that runs windows can run linux where you have full control, and certain android phones can be rooted/unlocked and flashed with custom roms without google or run firewall apps to block outgoing data.
Yes, Windows and Android devices give users more control. But that is because their business models are totally different. We all know that Google is primarily an ad-tech company, and that Android is how they collect the data for those ads. And while a technically savvy person may be able to lock down their devices, that's just a minority of users we're talking about.
Apple's data collection is a murmur compared to the deafening screech of that of Google.
Remember that this decision was made over a decade ago, back when there were many competitors - both software and hardware vendors - vying for a foothold in the smartphone market. Google trying to flex its muscles too much would have sent its licensees scurrying toward competitors.
They have pulled back from that drastically, to the point where root doesn't really get you much control on an Android device any more. Whether that's driven by discovering that a very open approach to user control makes for a lot of security issues (which lines up with Apple's claims), or whether its about trying to improve revenue streams, well, who knows?
I think they stayed in that state for a few years, though.
For starters, it's something AT&T did with just the phones they were selling, not something Google did with the Android platform or Android phone makers like LG and Samsung did with their phones.
I think they might just survive without your business. And pretty sure it demonstrates that their formula of security and privacy over openness is the right one for them.
> I think they might just survive without your business.
The parent post makes some the argument that the restrictive nature of iOS makes it unappealing to certain users. You counter that with a discussion-ending argument about how much money Apple makes.
Not everything that makes billions of dollars is immune to criticism. Especially since Apple markets the iPad as a "computer", a term that traditionally referred to unrestricted computing devices.
The implication is that Apple's design decision favors far more users than it doesn't.
In other words, the same design decisions that cost Apple one HNer nets them general consumers - so Apple can definitely survive without the HNer's business.
Me: "Great, do not buy an Apple protect." HN: "But I like their HW." Me: "Well then you have to deal with their SW restrictions." HN: "But I do not want to, why cannot they not just do this for me, it's just SW."
Wash, rinse, repeat on every story on AppleHW. I would really love to be able to read the comments on the interesting aspect of the story without 80% of the comments going back to this debate for once.
Apple is NOT a monopoly, therefor you cannot force them to change this. You can buy another device that allows you to install 3rd party stuff. Do that.
Also, Apple knows as much as anyone that terms change over time. Last week the RSA experts were angry that “crypto” now meant “cryptocurrency” instead of the historical “cryptography”.
Do they? I don’t follow their ads closely, but I can’t find the word “computer” on https://www.apple.com/ipad-pro/ (given the 8tneractivity on that page, it still may be there, but I tried looking hard, and couldn’t find it), and they have an explicit ad saying “iPad Pro — Your next computer is not a computer” (https://youtube.com/watch?v=09_QxCcBEyU)
Can you point to that marketing?
For a business that makes it's money from consumer spending habits, I think this is a perfectly valid argument. Apple isn't a utility company or something the users are locked in to. If they decided openness was more important, why are they still buying so many iPhones?
Except when it's not a computer https://youtu.be/pI-iJcC9JUc (/s)
The global fashion ecommerce industry was expected to decline from $531.25 billion in 2019 to $485.62 billion in 2020. The negative compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of -8.59% is largely due to the coronavirus pandemic. However, the market is set to recover and hit $672.71 billion by 2023
The general clothing market is even bigger, obviously:
In 2019, global retail sales of apparel and footwear reached 1.9 trillion U.S. dollars, and were expected to rise to above three trillion U.S. dollars by 2030.
It looks like you are trying to discredit the poster or accuse them of dishonesty without adding new information to the thread.
If they are wrong, you can trivially demonstrate that with a link of your own.
Do you own an Xbox or Playstation? Do you own a SmartTV?
I do own an old Kindle Paperwhite, which I assume is fairly locked down? I'm not actually sure.
What's more, Google is re-doing their calculus -- and reaching the same conclusion that Apple did. More restrictions are being implemented into Android with each major release.
For many, including me, it's not some inconvenience that we are okay with. We see it as a selling point.
I've tried them all and Apple's balance of openness/security/quality is the best I've experienced. If they follow the direction of others, I'd probably jump ship.
It didn't shift. Google had the same calculus with the same answers. Only Google never had the hardware, so AOSP was a way to make sure Android is everywhere.
There's a great Ars Technica article about this: https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2011/09/owning-the-stack... They all want to own the smartphone stack.
If Apple allowed you to unlock your iPad, they would also be allowing my grandmother to be scammed into unlocking hers.
Building a walled garden was a great decision for consumers by Apple, and if it was profit driven then that’s +1 for capitalism.
Their answer isn't openness, it's surveillance. Google is a surveillance driven ad company.
I don't see how Google, which controls the default apps, which can give them whatever privileges it wants at an OS-level, needs an Open platform to monitor me. If anything, wouldn't Google have more incentive than iOS to lock the platform down, since it doesn't want the competition from apps like Facebook that are competing in the same data-driven ad space?
Edit: Not sure why people are taking offense at this. Google doesn't need the web to be open, that's a talking point that comes up every time we talk about Chrome -- Google only needs its own ad network to function. Android is the same; why does Google need Android to be Open? They don't need the ability to sideload apps. Google Maps is installed by default, all of their apps are contractually required to be installed by default if you want access to the Play Store. If Google removed the ability to sideload today, none of their apps would get removed from your phone.
Maybe developers could stop looking at the green grass on Apples side of the fence and bring that polish to open-source.
But I imagine that will simply devolve into the mess it already is, with flame wars, and figurative genital punching to prove how hardcore one is for the obfuscated C they cobbled together.
There was time when Linux distributions were thought of as walled gardens. Cobble together just the right collection of source for you! Don’t let Red Hat control your mind! SystemD is a cage for your soul!
Meanwhile, Apple just got the damn job done and moved on.
If it’s a choice between masochistic elitism or filtered content. Hmmm…
No, that's just a garden. A garden is where a single trusted entity cultivates the plants it wants in the way it wants. It has boundaries, but not necessarily walls.
Walled gardens are a strict subset of gardens. A walled garden doesn't let you go out and forage from the wilds to augment the produce of the garden.
Anyone pushing into the App Store specifically then complaining has their own initial choice to blame. But of course that can’t be right…
