Legally, the distinction is totally arbitrary. None of this is being decided on any kind of broader principles, because you're exactly right -- there's zero good answer as to why iPhones should be forced to allow sideloading but not PS5's. In fact, I'd go so far as to say there's something quite unfair about it all, precisely because there's no consistent moral or legal principle whatsoever being applied here.
But in practice, it's simply because for whatever reason, restricting apps on a phone bothers people more than restricting games on a console. We live in democracies, and laws get passed because people want them, not because they're consistent or make sense. Maybe because people think of phones as deriving from computers and you can install whatever you want on a computer, while game consoles have been locked down since basically the beginning, so it's just a question of what people are used to.
People sometimes use the argument that game consoles are sold at a loss and therefore require being locked down, but that's irrelevant. In the same way Europe (and now Japan) are forcing Apple to change its business model, they could easily force Sony to change its business model as well, so it would be forced to sell consoles at full price.
Not long ago there was a clear distinction between general computing devices and specialized devices. These concepts still exist in our minds, but while it used to be binary, it's now a spectrum: servers and desktops are at one end, things like smartwatches and e-readers and the touchscreens in our cars are at the other end. Most people feel that video game consoles are clearly specialized devices even though they're quite computationally powerful.
The question is where phones should fall on this spectrum. Steve Jobs strongly felt they should be treated as specialized devices, but as they're now powerful enough to be many people's primary device, attitudes are shifting toward treating them more like the laptops of yore.
We’ll said. For me, if I am buying a $1,000 phone the default should be that there is a way to write native apps for it without requiring a dev account/fee and ways for other consenting users to get and install such software. The lion’s share of users are free to keep their devices locked down (and they may be well served to do so for their own safety).
The EU's Digital Markets Act could, in theory, allow for consoles to be unlocked and used freely. There's nothing in the Act that specifically leaves them out (or puts smartphones in, for that matter). It's device-agnostic, the only thing that matters are the usage numbers.
It may be device-agnostic by the letter, but not in spirit -- it's widely understood that the usage numbers were specifically chosen as a mechanism to cover phones but not consoles.
This happens regularly in laws and regulations, where you can't write a law singling out one or more companies by name, so certain thresholds are chosen to achieve the same end.
This is of course cynical, but naturally they wouldn't want to allow sideloading on Japanese platforms which hurt Japanese companies.
I've recently been playing around with Switch Homebrew and sideloading - mostly so I could extract my savegames to play games I own on PC instead using the Yuzu emulator (4K 60fps is more fun). Apparently Nintendo is quite good at detecting modified software on the Switch and will permanently ban and brick your hardware, so you need to go through great lengths not to connect to Nintendo servers when booting the modified or sideloaded software.
No need to feel cynical. This is exactly what they are doing.
Japan's Prime Minister dressed up as Mario for the opening ceremonies of the Olympics. Japan actually has a law that makes it a criminal act to stream video gameplay without permission from the copyright holder.
In other words, Japan sees its most popular cultural exports (Nintendo, the anime industry) as national treasures deserving of utmost protection.
I have fortunately not run into this problem yet - but all the Switch homebrew forums, Reddit communities and other sources say that your console becomes completely useless. You aren't just banned from online play and store. According to what I read it seems that even offline use will not work at that point.
Nintendo only bans for cheating in online games or installing pirated software. Nintendo has (so far) not issued any bans for just installing or using custom firmware.
There is no circumstance in which Nintendo remotely bricks your console.
When you get banned for cheating, you are banned from that specific game's servers.
When you get banned for installing pirated software, you get banned from all Nintendo Switch online services. The console can continue to be used fully offline.
Intuitively that is what I would expect too. But information on the subject is all over the place. Could you point to an established source on this subject or expand on how you have confirmed this information?
They don’t ban you just for having modified software, they will usually ban you for pirating or cheating. It’s reasonably safe to go online with homebrew if you aren’t pirating or cheating but there’s no guarantee, they could still ban you at any time for anything
All it takes is to connect to the store or multiplayer gaming services with the customized O/S and you might be a lucky candidate to have your device banned. From all accounts this doesn't appear to be an automated process, or happens rather randomly.
I agree that those who sideload pirated games and then take those games online are most at risk to have their device bricked.
You could be, but I don’t think there’s any evidence of that ever happening with the Nintendo Switch specifically
It’s hard to be sure because not everyone who pirates or cheats will admit to it and there’s a lot of conflicting information online but I go online with Atmosphere booted sometimes and I’ve never had any issues and many others do the same
I don’t think Nintendo have any way to know if all you’re doing is booting a custom OS unless there’s detection code that no one found yet
Primarily, it's just because game consoles are not general purpose computing devices, customers don't expect that kind of software support in the first place. But even if we wanted to change that, the consoles are all priced around this lock in. Generally speaking, consoles are sold at a loss during their first few years in production, under the assumption they will make money on software sales. If you no longer have to buy software the manufacturer gets a cut of, it no longer makes sense to subsidize the cost of the hardware. If this were to change, consoles would have to be more expensive in general. This is not the case in the smartphone market, Apple is making healthy profits on every iPhone sold.
To elaborate on this, I know many people who's only general purpose computing device is a phone. It's what they use for all their web browsing, email, communications, writing. All of it.
These people don't care that you can't compile code on their phone. They just care that they can use it for their general purpose needs.
The fact that they're used for general purpose use-cases and the fact that they're hosting applications for a wide set of other businesses which are threatened by possible anti-competitive actions of platform holders.
Xbox is a device that hosts video games and media services. A phone is hosting all those and hundreds of other use-cases, from banking and financial services, to hardware access via IoT interfaces, car integration and myriad of other applications.
Phones are many many people’s primary computing device these days (they have no laptop or desktop). And such a general computing device is increasingly required for various parts of life (school, interacting Witt various government agencies, business, all sorts of leisure uses (social media, etc) that are core to a person’s identity)
But why? I didn't buy an iPhone to be a general purpose computing device, I bought it to be an appliance that allows me to place calls, text my friends and take photos. Is there a magical force of nature that automatically transforms any device with a sufficiently powerful CPU into a general purpose device? Is there a FLOPS limit above which you're supposed to support general purpose tasks? Why is it that my washing machine is exempt from the rule but my cellphone isn't?
I mean, I'm not even on anyone's side here, I don't really care that much if they allow sideloading in iOS (I could think of a few reasons to use it, but I probably won't), I run a headless Linux machine to tinker with, I can build a gaming rig, I can and do all kinds of general purpose computation but I just don't think of my iPhone as a computer and I'd like to understand how someone who does is objectively more correct than me.
> Is there a magical force of nature that automatically transforms any device with a sufficiently powerful CPU into a general purpose device?
It doesn't need to be "turned" into a general purpose device. It already is. That's its nature. It's Apple who turned it into an "appliance" by artificially limiting what programs you can run on it. It quite literally is a general purpose computer that can run any program except the ones Apple doesn't like.
This is merely child's play, by the way. The future will no doubt feature governments wanting in on that action. Computers are subversive, after all. Encryption alone can make a mockery out of police and courts. They absolutely love the concept of a computer that runs only software that doesn't harm them.
Doesn't change the fact it's a computer that's inherently capable of any computation and they actively chose to artificially limit it mostly for rent seeking reasons.
That will become evident when governments force Apple to undo those artificial locks. You'll see there was nothing really limiting its potential beside's Apple's locks.
> Of course there’s nothing inherent to it that makes it locked down.
So we finally agree. It's a perfectly fine computer, but Apple went and turned it into an iPhone App Executor.
> That doesn’t mean locking it down is bad or wrong.
It absolutely does. Apple owns the machine, not you. Apple has all the keys, not you. You will never be able to do anything with your device that Apple doesn't approve of. You've traded away your freedom for convenience.
> I never argued that the hardware physically couldn’t execute instructions for other purposes
Never said you did. You said you didn't understand what I meant when I said computers are naturally able to compute.
> I can destroy it if I choose.
Apple has no problem with you destroying it. You've already paid for it. In fact they'd love it if you destroyed your phone since it means you'll have to buy another.
Try doing something they don't like. See who they machine obeys.
> Is there a reason this is more important than say on consoles? Why does no one push for sideloading on Switch and PS5, what's the difference?
Every single member of homebrew communities is pushing for that, why are you claiming they don't exist?
Phones and tablets just get priority because they affect multiple markets and massive chunk of economy (pretty much all B2C and a lot of B2B software) due to popularity of pocket computers and their critical position in everyones lives.
Sony doesn't dictate what kind of software Japanese banks can build for their customers, US Apple/Google corporation however do and thus control big parts of their economies. OF COURSE that's what they're prioritize over video games.
> Consoles are sold at a loss which complicates things.
It doesn't really. Nobody forced the console makers to adopt that business model, and they must have been aware of the regulatory risks. They chose to do it anyway.
True but so far the common view is that when you buy something subsidized you play by the rules of the person that subsidizes it. Like buying a phone from a carrier and it locking only to it's sim cards and so on.
Of course as a consumer you must have a right to break vendor lock in (free market and competition is good right), but in case of subsidized goods you should also expect some kind of additional fee for the unlock.
With carrier-subsidized phones, you sign a contract at the time of purchase agreeing to those rules, and if you don't like them, you can pay full price for an unlocked phone instead. With game consoles, you don't sign any such contract, and the manufacturer won't sell you an unsubsidized unlocked one.
I could be wrong, but I don’t think there are any laws specific to general purpose computing, and the internals of newer consoles in particular are just PCs.
The fact that they’re able to do this is an exclusive carve-out from PC gaming for a few manufacturers. Yeah, they sell at a loss, but it’s at a cost to their competitors and PC gamers. Absent this, a gaming PC would cost more than a PS5 but it would also run xBox exclusives, people wouldn’t have 2 consoles, and they could use their gaming computer for things other than gaming!
Conceptually I understand this. In order to be codified, I think the legal system needs to come up with clear and accepted differentiation between the two.
Exactly like my iPhone, my PlayStation plays games, has a web browser, runs Netflix, gets updates, can message or call my friends, has only one real kind of competing product (PS and Xbox, iOS and Android), and is even significantly more powerful than the iPhone. So far I haven't heard a single objective reason why selling a console as an appliance is okay but selling a phone as an appliance should not be.
I've not seen updated stats in a long time but saw blog posts from game devs several years ago showing that on Android, there's quite a bit of piracy going on for many one-time-purchase apps, especially games.
While these devs aren't suffering from having to eat the cost of a loss leader, mobile app prices have been driven down to almost nothing for nearly the entire existence of the App Store/Play Store, making the impact of piracy just as bad if not worse for a different reason. While people pirate PC games, there's also a lot of people who pay the full $60US price on Steam which comparably softens the impact.
I don't see why they shouldn't. Consoles are just computers with funny keyboards, why do Microsoft and Sony get to decide who does and doesn't get to make games or applications for them?
Another answer could be that Sony and Nintendo have huge lobbying power in Japan, and they don't want to undermine some of their most important industries.
You could argue that the business model of consoles also doesn't support this, but Apple arguably also makes a fortune on their 30% lock-in charge. They are probably double-dipping though, since the margins on iPhones must not be all too bad.
There is absolutely no reason. The digital fiefdoms of gaming companies must be abolished and outlawed as well. They do nothing but harm consumers. For example, there's often no technical reason why one platform can't play online with another but these corporate lords impose heavy prices on such functionality with the aim of strengthening their little fiefdoms.
Great, this is a huge step forward. Hopefully it will be the norm worldwide. Next step is limiting stuff like remote attestation so users can't be punished for exercising their freedoms.
>Next step is limiting stuff like remote attestation so users can't be punished for exercising their freedoms.
It wouldn't be needed if those people "exercising their freedoms" were not using it to abuse platforms. When you simply want to add a leaderboard in your game remote attestation makes it easy to filter out all cheated attempts from people sideloading a hacked version of your game. Remote attestation does not limit your freedom to modify things. It just allows platforms to be able to tell if you are using a vanilla version of the app.
> It wouldn't be needed if those people "exercising their freedoms" were not using it to abuse platforms.
It's not your platform, it's my computer. To even call it abuse is to assume these corporations even get a say in what happens in our machines. They don't.
> When you simply want to add a leaderboard in your game remote attestation makes it easy to filter out all cheated attempts from people sideloading a hacked version of your game.
Total non-issue. What's a bunch of video games compared to our freedom? We should cede control to corporations because some people might cheat at video games? Ridiculous.
> Remote attestation does not limit your freedom to modify things. It just allows platforms to be able to tell if you are using a vanilla version of the app.
Self-contradictory. They should not be able to tell at all. Otherwise you get locked out of your banking service if you try to exercise even a minimum of control over how much surveillance you're subjected to. We should be able to have complete control over everything and they should have to accept that as a precondition for their very existence as a corporation in the market.
Someone who is running a leaderboard server is doing so on their computer and not yours.
>these corporations even get a say in what happens in our machines
That is not what remote attestation is about. Remote attestation lets the "corporation" ensure that a client using their servers is running the software that the corporation intends to have connect to the server.
>What's a bunch of video games compared to our freedom?
In my example you are still free to cheat at the game. You just will not be able to submit your cheated scores.
>Otherwise you get locked out of your banking service if you try to exercise even a minimum of control over how much surveillance you're subjected to.
Allowing for modifications to remove "surveillance" also will allow mods that add backdoors for people to steal your credentials and make actions on your behalf.
>We should be able to have complete control over everything
This is complicated because bad actors can install malicious software if there is a way to change anything or bad actors can social engineer people into installing the malicious software.
> Someone who is running a leaderboard server is doing so on their computer and not yours.
And yet they're enforcing little rules and policies on my machine. I'll let them have that freedom the day they give me SSH root access to their servers.
> That is not what remote attestation is about. Remote attestation lets the "corporation" ensure that a client using their servers is running the software that the corporation intends to have connect to the server.
Their "intent" doesn't matter. Their servers should accept accept any connection from any software that talks their network protocol. We should be able to run whatever software we want to interact with remote servers, including third party apps, not just the "intended" app. This is what adversarial interoperability is all about.
The network is the perfect boundary for this. If that results in some bot being able to cheat at games, doesn't matter. Small price to pay for freedom. The truth is people should not even be playing with untrusted internet randoms anyway. They should be playing with trusted friends who they know will play fairly.
> Allowing for modifications to remove "surveillance" also will allow mods that add backdoors for people to steal your credentials and make actions on your behalf.
No problem.
> This is complicated because bad actors can install malicious software if there is a way to change anything or bad actors can social engineer people into installing the malicious software.
No, it's extremely simple. I don't trade freedom for security, because that trade gets me neither. To make that trade you'd have to trust these trillion dollar corporations will act in your best interests and that's just idiotic. I hope I don't have to list the numerous ways that corporate surveillance capitalism harms people. What good is protection against "malicious software" when their apps are essentially spyware anyway?
If I have to risk dealing with malicious software in order to have control, so be it.
>And yet they're enforcing little rules and policies on my machine.
They aren't. You still have the freedom to modify rules and policies that are on your machine.
>I'll let them have that freedom the day they give me SSH root access to their servers.
So leaderboard servers should give everyone root access? That too will result in cheated times making it in.
>Their servers should accept accept any connection from any software that talks their network protocol.
Okay, but that has nothing to do with attestation. You can still write your own client to talk to the service. You just will not be able to attest that you are using an official client. It is up to the service to choose what to do with that information.
>If that results in some bot being able to cheat at games, doesn't matter. Small price to pay for freedom.
99% of consumers do not care about having that much freedom and they do care about people cheating in the games they play.
>The truth is people should not even be playing with untrusted internet randoms anyway. They should be playing with trusted friends who they know will play fairly.
This doesn't scale. Also some people do not have friends to play with and would like a matchmaking system to find people to play with.
>you'd have to trust these trillion dollar corporations will act in your best interests and that's just idiotic
Then don't use their software. Most people prefer the trade off.
>What good is protection against "malicious software" when their apps are essentially spyware anyway?
Analytics and telemetry are not spyware. Understanding how user's are using your product is not spying.
> You still have the freedom to modify rules and policies that are on your machine.
We don't. The OS is owned by Apple, they too use cryptography and remote attestation to not let us "tamper" with your app.
> So leaderboard servers should give everyone root access? That too will result in cheated times making it in.
Absurd, isn't it? That's what it feels like to have some corporation dictating what you can and can't do with your computer.
> You just will not be able to attest that you are using an official client. It is up to the service to choose what to do with that information.
As if services will ever use that information to do anything but screw us over by refusing to interoperate. They should not be able to tell at all that we aren't using an "official" client.
> Then don't use their software. Most people prefer the trade off.
Yeah sure. I'll just stop using my bank's software and lock myself out of my accounts and investments. I'll totally cut myself off from my entire social circle by refusing to use WhatsApp.
> Analytics and telemetry are not spyware. Understanding how user's are using your product is not spying.
Well I don't want them to "understand" anything about me. I don't consent to it. Since I can't trust corporations to respect consent, I will absolutely do everything in my power to ensure they can't track anything. I don't need remote attestation getting in the way.
Whenever an article demands more freedom and more user rights on Apple platforms, it irritates me to see an enormous amount of participants arguing against it, defending Apple‘s practices. I am wondering if these are consumers who do not want freedom, or an army of paid people who scan forums to defend Apple‘s practices.
It's against the site guidelines to insinuate astroturfing or shillage like this - if you'd please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and stick to the rules, we'd appreciate it.
The reason is that the overwhelming majority of such perceptions turn out not to have any evidence behind them, and meanwhile it's one of the things that internet commenters do that most degrades discussion.
I help maintain the phones/computers for several non-technical and/or elderly family members.
Their computers are a mess. No matter what pro-active measures I take, every time I get involved, they have a bunch of nonsense installed doing who-knows-what. Random apps, most of which are running all the time, slogging down the system. The younger folks have different game-stores, or other similar things, all running in the background. The computers are slower than mud.
Their phones are all fine. They may download crap, but I know it is almost impossible for it to mess things up outside of that individual app.
I'm not saying this to completely defend Apple - I honestly don't know which side of the App Store/sideloading debate I fall on. I'm just pointing out that there are huge benefits, particularly for the general population of non-techincal users, to Apple remaining as a gatekeeper (albeit obviously a quite imperfect one).
You’re being disingenuous here. Of course malware slips through the review process, but it definitely catches more than it misses. Additionally, it serves as a deterrent to malware authors to seek softer attack surfaces.
Having more stores won't open up anything. A user will still have to install them. And I'm sure they would implement their own process. Fdroid for example, compiles everything going through there
I think the best option really is for side-loading to be possible, but just not easy. this is how it work on Amazon Fire TV sticks. you have to go into settings, flick a switch buried a few layers deep, then download an unobvious app from the store, after which you can download whatever app you like from the internet, but only within that app. everyone wins. at least until Amazon decide this is losing them money, anyway
Yeah! Whenever I visit my parents their Android phones are always full of adware and toolbars, their background is a gambling ad, and their bluetooth speaker insults the cat!
Except that's not what happens. My mom gets spammy magazine article notifications which I offered to help her get rid of, but she actually wants them for some reason.
Why should I buy something else because other people can’t handle computers without training wheels?
The befuddled kind grandmothers of the world can just not install/sideload alt stores.
The most common way the elderly get scammed is over voice telephone conversations. Would you suggest we disable the ability to speak over the phone to “protect” them as well?
No, I defend it because I actually do not want that. I prefer the Apple experience. I control all my subscriptions from a single place, I only get stuff from the App Store and if I get tricked to buy an app that is not working I can request a refund and I’ve never had issues getting my money back. I also haven’t had a single issue with anyone from my family getting scammed or their details being stolen after switching the to Apple. Before it was a constant “accidental” subscriptions and random installed apps.
What actually annoys me are the developers wanting everything for “free”. Look you customer chose to buy an iPhone. Accept it. You don’t like that you have to Apple? Tell your customer to use a web browser. But I feel there is almost no respect from developers to what the users have chosen and why.
This is actually wild to me because I think it is based on a big assumption.
I'm not actually sure most customers actually "chose" the iPhone. For many, it's a social construct. Apple creates iMessage, if you want to be able to talk to your friends and be in the group chat or get Facetime calls, you need an iPhone. The Social fallout is large. I wouldn't fully disagree with you if..we were talking about buying a random brand Android phone because you could just buy a different one..but Apple's unwillingness to openness really removes elements of choice.
Then there's this other angle that I think it is weird that you think it needs to be black or white. The default App store will still be the default. You can just use it out of the box as you do. Any solution that allows third party stores would be a setting that would need activation and would probably say, repeatedly "Don't do this if someone told you to".
Then finally, the angle that developers want things for free is wiiiild. Apple actively locks features out of PWAs on purpose, the native feature support is awful. Apple stating that any digital transaction on a phone means they get 30% is a wild world. Imagine a world where Ford cars demand 30% of all tolls or 30% of all drive-thru transactions as it is 'in-car' purchases. Computers never worked like this and it harms users. If apple wants a cut, they should have to defend it with a better product rather than locking people out.
Look I completely agree on the charges. There is no rationale for them. But fix that. The only viable defense is Apple creates an ecosystem and builds the APIs and OS. They need to get paid for the work - otherwise the argument for developers wanting stuff for free is still valid.
Enforce features being available (NFC for example on the iPhone). PWA is a complete joke - I agree. Enforce feature-parity.
But IMO the argument always boils down to the fact the fees are too high. That is the main driver. And like nobody talks about the fact they are the same as Xbox, PS, Nintendo, Steam because we have more mobile developers who want to make more money. I mean the vast majority of apps should most likely not exist - they are just bloatware (again IMO).
What I think would make sense we do a blanket statement for all stores and devices. Either all or nothing otherwise this is not really a problem on ethics or morality but on just pure profits.
You bring up a great point about XBox PS, and Nintendo. Nobody is forcing them to allow alternative game stores on their platforms. If anything there is less competition on game consoles due to all of the platform exclusives.
Nobody cares what color their iMessage chat bubbles are. It’s complete nonsense. We have a group text chat at work, other than a little friendly gentle ribbing about people owning the wrong phone (much like following the wrong sports team), it never even gets mentioned. My kids are the same way, they have group chats with their friend groups and the ones that speak in green bubbles are not ostracized because of it.
I just recently switched to an iPhone (not quite 2 years ago) after owning Android phones for years. iMessage wasn’t even a thought in my purchasing decision. It’s a great messaging app, but at the end of the day, it’s just a way to send text messages.
To be clear: nobody else should have the option to not have to use the walled garden on devices they purchased because... you prefer the walled garden?
If there is side loading forced to be allowed on Apple devices, there is nobody making you leave the walled garden.
No, there are already devices which are not wall gardened. Use those.
My argument is that I have bought a specific device (and everyone else also did) instead of the other device being open. So I have already made a choice. Now you (or someone else) comes in and says: Well all of you obviously want this freedom that you chose not to have in the first place…
Yeah I explicitly chose that and I know many people who made that choice. Because they want the piece of mind vs the sideloading. Again are there phones that allow it? Yes, and people have decided not to buy those. My point is - respect that choice and don’t tell ppl (general public) that they want something because it’s more profitable to the developers.
I do expect a future conversation to go like this:
Scammer: Madam, go into your settings and enable side loading. It will then connect to your bank account and I will…
Now click on the link I sent you to connect so I can help you
I think your proposed attack vector would look more like this:
Scammer: Madam, go into your settings and enable side loading. It will then connect to your bank account and I will…
Madam: Okay uuuuh... A big popup came up... It says... That I should not enable this setting unless I really know what I'm doing... And if someone is telling me to enable it then I should hang up the phone!!
This is a totally unrealistic scenario. Victims of scam trust the person on the phone much more than their own ability to figure out what's going on. Scammers successfully convince people to manually disable every protection and dismiss every warning the computer throws at them regularly.
No amount of software red tape is going to prevent scammers from sideloading malware on a device of a victim who trusts them. The only realistic way to actually prevent it is to not have sideloading as an option in the first place.
In many ways this is the same choice of wanting to live and do business in countries with a strong rule of law. I don't want other people to be able to opt-out of the law when they think it suits them, I want good ground rules that make things better.
Apple's walled garden has created an Apps market in the same way that governments create markets in the economy: by creating basic rules of conduct and commerce that allow people to feel safe enough to transact.
If side-loading appears I expect a race to the bottom as apps attempt to move people out of the App store and into a progressive web of predatory dark patterns that eventually kills all trust in the platform.
> If side-loading appears I expect a race to the bottom as apps attempt to move people out of the App store and into a progressive web of predatory dark patterns that eventually kills all trust in the platform.
Surely Android is an absolute cesspit at this point then.
I think you over estimate how many people actually utilize side-loading. To your other points, an overwhelming majority will never turn on side-loading if it's added. They will continue to use Apple's walled garden app market. The barriers to even install a side-loaded app will cause most to give up in frustration.
> Surely Android is an absolute cesspit at this point then.
I mean... yes? Like, it's not the bad old days of Windows in the early 2000s, but people demonstrably don't want to spend money in the Play Store and what money they do spend is on big name brands.
Devil’s advocate here. Nobody else should have the option to prefer Apple devices as they are today because… you’d prefer them differently?
If Apple stays the same as it is today, there is nobody making you buy an Apple device.
Don’t get me wrong, I’d like to be able to sideload apps, and I think more competition in the App Store space would be beneficial for consumers. But a lot of the “freedom” type advocates act as if someone held a gun to their head and forced them to use an Apple device for the remainder of their life, and now they can’t sideload apps. If that’s an important feature to someone, there’s a platform that allows that.
Every feature, even the one you don't use, comes with a price. There's no such thing as free feature in software.
Adding sideloading reduces security of a device even if you personally never touch it. There'll be more attack vectors, scams etc that would only be possible with sideloading.
Not really. I have been on HN for some time. I like the debates that happen here. This is probably one of the only topics I feel very strongly about.
Again nobody has managed to challenge my point that if you want side loading there is another platform you can use. Why does every platform needs to be so open? You wanna tell me there are NO benefits from a closed platform?
I can still side load using my Dev Account so I want a specific app - I’ll build it and have it. Anyone can side load with a dev account so the entire point as I keep coming back is because of the revenue to developers not freedoms.
> Accept it. You don’t like that you have to Apple? Tell your customer to use a web browser
That's exactly like I've done, I do tell people that iphones are legacy devices and to buy something else in the future if they want a better experience, I won't port anything on it and discontinued everything I had the appstore.
I'm not sure that answer would make you happy either though.
It actually does!! I’m very happy to use web apps.
As for legacy - pretty sure the markets, users and developers will disagree with you
Plus my experience on Android has been terrible. BUT some ppl like it. I don’t go and shit on them and tell them it’s terrible. I write my apps to support Android as much as possible. If there are issues I’d prioritise iOS but that’s because it’s my platform of choice. The same way you have the right. AND that is fine
> As for legacy - pretty sure the markets, users and developers will disagree with you
That's fine then, everyone has their point of view. I've used their platform to deploy the app before I discontinued it to make it Android-only so I do have a real experience on how bad the dev platform is, I'm not just judging randomly.
I also used the phone itself for a year and it was hands down the worst mobile experience I ever had but this is more subjective, unlike the dev experience which I do think is objectively terrible.
It's not just developers who want this; I'm a user who owns and iPhone and I would like to be able to sideload or use other stores/payment systems.
I don't want to use a web browser for anything I'd use an app for. The web is and always will be an inferior experience compared to a well-made native app.
I don't want to use Android. Google's Android is so full of privacy holes that nobody really knows how to turn most of the data collection off. Open-source Android is incompatible with standard apps like my local public transit app due to over-reliance on Play Services.
I do like the things you mentioned about Apple but just as I'll use raw credit cards or bank transfers with merchants I trust and PayPal for those I don't, I'd like to do the same with purchases on iOS. Sometimes I'd be happy to pay a premium to know I won't have to go through an arduous process to cancel a subscription, sometimes I wouldn't. I want the choice.
So don't download apps from elsewhere? If an app decides to move away from the App Store there will be competitors jumping in to replace it within days.
No, I value my time and my brain. It takes me X wasted minutes to talk to a support person to remove my subscription. That’s not really a good use of my brain, is it now?
If you want the freedom - there are platforms out there. Use those. There is no reason to impose your views on the rest of us. I prefer this level of security vs freedom. When I need the freedom I pickup my Android phone.
The important point here is I have a choice.
Ppl get scammed by phone calls & text messages… it’s an entire industry designed and operating to bypass this brain of yours. And now we are introducing another vector to make it easier. That is my problem with side-loading. The fact that it increases the attack surface for everyone even though not everyone wants it.
I personally would like to have side loading on Apple devices, but also I have four different game stores on my PC because some games are not available on the others. And hate it so much.
Serious game store competition has improved Steam a lot. Epic Games may be a shit company, but they keep Valve on their toes and we're all better for it. GOG is also ahead in many ways, like how their launcher integrates with every other launcher so you only really need to open GOG if you want to play games.
Shitty stores that only offer their maker's products (uPlay, Origin, Battle.net) don't need to compete, so their experience is usually crap. Most of those have vanished these days, though.
I’m going to speak in terms of the iPhone because that is the device to which your comment refers, but the following could easily apply to any smart phone:
A person’s iPhone is extremely personal. They spend hours using it. It is practically an extension of their body. Many people sleep next to them. Many people develop a form of arthritis in their thumbs, downward curving necks, eye strain using them. Most people are never more than a few feet from their iPhone, and that’s usually because the device has to be sometimes connected to a wall in order to continue functioning.
Is it any wonder, then, that some people have trepidations about forced changes to how that device functions? Is it a mystery the some people are concerned about how that will impact the development of the device going forward?
Whether you agree with their concerns or not — as I take it you don’t — I think it’s perfectly reasonable that a large contingent of users are skeptical of an outside governing body forcing the maker of a device they depend on to make substantial changes to its operating model.
You call it more user freedom, but more freedom to do what, exactly? What’s your pitch for those who are hesitant?
> You call it more user freedom, but more freedom to do what, exactly? What’s your pitch for those who are hesitant?
Nothing will change for you if you don't want it to change. This is only an option for people who want additional functionality. Nobody is forcing freedom or change on you by adding one more hard-to-find option buried in a menu somewhere for people who really want it.
> This is only an option for people who want additional functionality.
The common concern is that critical software that users depend on will only be released in a way that circumvents the safety mechanisms that Apple employs to prevent the execution of malicious code. Is that fear unfounded?
Even setting aside the malicious code concern, many users don’t want to have to track several different app stores to find functional software. What prevents this from becoming the case?
The official app store will surely have 99.9%+ market share, just like the Play Store does on Android. Not many companies will want to give up 99.9% of their total addressable market. And Google has the same sort of review process Apple does. Are there any examples of critical software that users depend on only being released in a way that circumvents Google's safety mechanisms?
Looks like a direct cause and effect relationship. So to avoid the same outcome, you'll just need to buy your phone in a country where Apple makes the App Store available. That seems reasonable to me.
I don't think there's a danger Apple will discontinue the App Store in any region as a result of these rulings.
> Nothing will change for you if you don't want it to change.
That's not true. There's always cost, even for a feature that you personally never use. Sideloading opens tons of new security attack vectors and dark patterns, that it's going to affect absolutely everybody eventually.
I think a lot of people opposing side loading, at least here on HN, are involved in app development, etc. They don't want side loading because they've had to buy into the Apple ecosystem and now they're stuck with it. Sideloading means competitors won't have to go through the same crap that they did. Sort of like the debate around student debt, health care, etc.
I would be happy to pay more for an app by using the Apple store than using a side loaded version. I like being able to cancel subscriptions without having to email or call someone.
Two things:
1: Apple allowing third party stores means that those who only pick the third party store would lose you as a customer. That is how competition should work. You should have that choice. That is it working correctly.
2: In the US, at least, that is nearly at it's end. In California, it is illegal for a company to not allow you to cancel the same way you signed up.
Let’s flip it around a bit. Apple not allowing developers to make side loaded apps means that those who don’t like this situation don’t have to develop mobile apps. It just means those developers lose mobile customers. That’s how competition works.
Having a single app store that enforced policies brings consumers peace of mind. I don’t think it’s worthwhile to change that. What will happen is that bad actors will end up having an easier time engaging in shenanigans.
>in the sense that you can't run what you choose on it
Do you not own a washing machine if you can't use it to render 3D videos on the computer inside? A washing machine being a washing machine is just what the device is. If you own an iphone the expectation is that you can run iphone apps. Apple never advertised that you can run anything on it.
Your example is weird and bad. Let me give you a better one.
Imagine buying a washing machine but it will only wash clothes made by Old Navy, you cannot buy any other brand of clothing. Additionally, the local bars and restaurants, only allow you to enter if you are wearing Old Navy as that is in the contract of actually wearing the shirt. Your friends can only talk to you in a group if you are wearing Old Navy. Otherwise they must talk to you 1 by 1. Finally, Old Navy Clothes cannot be used in any other brand of washing machines as they will not 'wash', they are incompatible.
Because of this, everyone you know wears Old Navy. If you want to get a bite to eat with them, you must own this washing machine. Because everyone is locked into Old Navy clothes, Old Navy gets a cut from the restaurants and your prices go up.
This is how weird the software market actually is.
> Do you not own a washing machine if you can't use it to render 3D videos on the computer inside?
You don't own it if you don't have complete control over its functions, including that of the computer inside. These things are coming loaded with "smart features" nowadays, you absolutely don't own a thing if you can't modify or delete that stuff. It's their machine, they're just letting you use it.
They are free mostly because they have in app purchases, which the stores take their cut of. It's easy to see the stores provide some of the value in the transaction, but 30% is an amount which would be arbitraged away with some real competition.
