151–160 of 1001 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
And we have already seen what happens when third party companies go around the Google Play store. You might have heard about this little company https://www.forbes.com/sites/ryanwhitwam/2018/08/25/epic-gam...
It feels like you're trying to use the existence of some criminal acts as a justification for a different set of criminal acts. So, yes, when users literally own their own devices, it is difficult for the manufacturer to keep them perfectly secure without abusing monopoly power. The door also swings the other way here too, because malware has certainly existed _inside_ the Play Store, and it took _users_ to bring it…
The entire value proposition of the App Store is the sandbox.
But Android security sucks either way
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes and they get viruses, malware, and ransomware from doing so. My mom searched for a printer driver and ended up installing some third party crap wars on her computer
Then Mom needs more training on how to differentiate between legitimate sites and non-legitimate ones. I've said it before, I'll say it again, as many times as people need to hear it: There is no such thing as, "I'm just not a computer person!" We're over and done with that era of human history. Just like we're over and done with, "I just can't read and write!" Too bad. You live in a world were reading and writing is…
Oh hey, will you look at that. I remember arguing with people for years about these cases. The thing with the app store situations is that Epic/app developers only need to win a single time vs the app stores, whereas the app stores need to win every battle. Either it will be through existing anti trust laws, or through new laws being created, or through the same thing happening in any major country in the world. Beca…
If you want to run a third-party app store, okay. But you have to play by Apple/Google's rules and standards.
Just like they have guidelines for their own store's apps, have the same guidelines for third-party stores. It puts the onus on third-party stores to make sure they're just as stringent as the parent store/platform. If you fail to be compliant per a specific set of rules (not ambiguous), your store gets booted.
If it's a purely a money concern, charge a "store developer" fee on an annual basis and tier it out based on number of sales/customers.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Would they also make Sony, Nintendo and Microsoft open up their platforms? God I hope so.
It would be terrible for consoles. They would not be able to recover their costs early enough in the lifecycle. Which means that the time between console releases would be much longer than it already is. It also would put Nintendo in an untenable situation since they rely on low price hardware as their differentiation.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The would be the end of consoles. At this point consoles have very few advantages to PC. If they got "opened up" it would be zero.
It's just look a lot more like a standardized PC. Which they they probably should by this point.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't get it, so no company can provide a walled garden? Or at least, not if they're successful? That doesn't make sense to me, why is that not an acceptable and desirable feature for some people ? You don't have to buy an iPhone, this isn't like a railroad or a telecom that owns all of the possible infrastructure. If you want a walled garden get an iPhone. If you want freedom with all that implies, go Android.
> I don't get it, so no company can provide a walled garden You can provide a walled garden. But that's not Apple does. Instead, Apple is a mafia that shakes down all the vendors for the right to sell in their semi-open market square. If Apple iOS were a walled garden, it would have contained only Apple applications.
When someone comes to your store and says "I made the streets and regulate the power, water supply, sewer, and everything else in this place, cut me 30% of your revenue in taxes" that's the government.
And you'd do well to not confuse those so haphazardly. Apple didn't come to your app and with no cause blackmail you to get your money. They created an ecosystem that did not exist before, and they have to maintain it. Paying for it is completely rational.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
And the fact Epic lost so handily against Apple for the same thing is pretty chilling for the future of open devices. Lock down your platform tight as a drum and you may employ all manners of anticompetitive practices because you legally forbid the existence of competitors and you're "curating your experience" but open yourself up to any competition and your behavior becomes anticompetitive.
And is it possibly because Android has a global dominance in market share well apple does not?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why is there this assumption that third party apps are going to be so unsafe? We already run untrusted executable code in the form of JavaScript. Why does the android system need to be different? Why can’t we say the OS needs sandboxing, api permissions, etc. I really don’t want the only thing protecting my phone being the fact that a human sometimes reviews an app.
because this is what computing used to be. you would download some random executable off some random website and hope you didn’t get infected with malware except the stakes are much higher on your phone than your 1998 computer because your phone is more powerful: your phone has more personal data, financial info, and can consume costly telecom resources
Why aren’t we seeing this scale of attacks using JavaScript?