Epic, Spotify, and Tinder form advocacy group to push for app store changes

Please don't half-quote selectively: "Developers will no longer all play by the same rules."

> This seems like a non-problem. Sandboxing is a local OS feature. re: How will iOS sandboxing be enforced for apps delivered via third-party stores?

For an app to be sandboxed it must be submitted to Apple and signed. Ergo: You would have to go through Apple anyway.

> The same thing that happens when the apple and google app stores do that. Reputation loss, or more likely: Nothing. re: what happens if a store starts writing malware?

There has been no cross-app malware on the iOS App Store.

> Why does it have to be? re: How will that privilege be regulated to prevent abuse?

If a third-party store and/or the apps served by it contain malware, but users aren't aware of it (e.g. cryptocurrency mining, data harvesting, and other silent exploitation of users' devices), it's good to have someone who is able to remotely shut those apps down.

> It shouldn't be. re: Controversial content like porn may still ultimately be bound by Apple's ruling...

...are you seriously saying porn and "adult" apps (like prostitution services and even more questionable material) should be allowed on Apple devices?

You're literally out to forcibly dismantle the entire value proposition of a company's products.

Are you going to force Microsoft/Sony/Nintendo to do the same for their consoles? Why only Apple? Just because they're too successful? They became this successful because of these restrictions. People want a curated platform.

> How so? Especially screen time restrictions is a non-issue for different stores. How is the rendering engine for a browser the restricting factor for content control? re: iOS Parental Control and Screen Time restrictions may be ineffective on other stores (and browsers too if third-party rendering engines were allowed).

They have to go through the official APIs to adhere to system-wide content restrictions set by a user, which requires reviewing and signing by Apple, otherwise they could just skip the official APIs and ignore any parental control settings etc.

> All other points are questions of convenience.

You haven't given any solutions to any of the questions, other than:

• Don't use it.

• It's not a problem.

The same answers apply to the status quo:

• Don't use Apple devices.

• A single App Store is not a problem for the majority of users:

All other points are questions of convenience.

>Buyers and sellers can't:

>In any communications with another eBay member, refer to or promote external websites that facilitate sales outside of eBay

I would count sending a "letter" along with your product to be a form of communication.

>Use contact information obtained through an eBay transaction to offer to buy or sell an item outside of eBay

This would prevent you from adding the insert to the package.

>Offer catalogs or other items that are used to order items directly outside of eBay

An insert is effectively a mini catalog. So they pretty much explicitly banned inserts. If you aren't even allowed to sell them for a price then sellers clearly wouldn't be allowed to give them away for free.

Sending an insert along with a product breaks 3 policy points at once. Can you describe which part of the policy actually allows inserts? All I see is that Ebay wants to have complete control over communications between seller and buyer.

This is incredibly naive.

They chose it to be this way for the purposes of profit.

Android is testament to the fact that high degree of quality and security and consistency can be maintained without any of the most iOS aggressive restrictions.

There is no material difference between security on either platform, they're both generally fine, apps are great on Android and people are not falling off the side of the earth because of 'scams or fallouts' regarding Android.

The existence and relative quality of the Android universe renders most of the arguments for iOS walled garden moot.

The term 'monopoly' may not apply perfect, but it's reasonable in the discussion, the anti-trust issues are obvious and have many historical parallels.

Then don't turn on root mode? Is that really such a large infringement on you? The fact that there might be an option in your phone, to turn on root mode, and the mere fact that this switch exists somehow mind controls you and makes you turn it on?

If an easy switch in the phone exists that says "Allow competing app stores to be installed", why can't you simply not switch that on?

This is non-sense fearmongering.

Giving people the ability to install fortnite, on an official fortnite app store, is not going to cause people to die from phone explosion

It is just not going to happen. Fortnite is not going to blow you up.

The reason why I know this to be the case, is that half the US smartphone market, allows people to side load APKs, and install fortnite that way, and people aren't being blown up because they had fortnite on their phone.