21–30 of 125 posts
Which is exactly what Apple doesn't want, because of (a) Fortnite / alt payment options (b) Facebook / privacy restrictions bypass, i.e. the loss of revenue and the loss of credibility as a (sort of) privacy-oriented platform.
So I am sure they will fight to at least make it an OR.
The best bit is that the proposal requires devices to support the original app store AND side-loading. Which is exactly what Apple doesn't want, because of (a) Fortnite / alt payment options (b) Facebook / privacy restrictions bypass, i.e. the loss of revenue and the loss of credibility as a (sort of) privacy-oriented platform. So I am sure they will fight to at least make it an OR.
Also it could lead to a much better ecosystem of open-source apps like there is with F-Droid on Android. It'll take some time to develop but I really love many F-Droid apps over their commercial alternatives. Apps are so much more efficient if they just do what they need to do and don't bother with all the spying and ads.
It could also finally enable other browsers on iOS for real!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Until Facebook is only distributed through their own store that doesn’t require app tracking transparency. Or Teams, or slack, …
I think that's unlikely to happen, for a host of consumer experience and market viability reasons: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30280457 One should note that Meta could create their own Android third party store right now, like Amazon has (pretty much only to support their Kindle Fire devices), yet they haven't had any interest in doing so. One could claim that's because Android users don't pay as much for ap…
So they really don't have a need to do this.
Apple can still make it difficult for them though. They can just remove the forbidden APIs and sandbox apps better. If they do this they don't even have to bother to review as thoroughly anymore.
The big benefit is that Apple no longer gets to decide what type of apps are allowed and what aren't.
Apple will soon require 3rd party app stores to remit 27% of all revenue.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Exactly. They are general purpose computers, artificially crippled by their manufacturer, to prevent their (supposed) owner from using their full potential.
This is a silly argument. Nobody is checking their bank account on their Xbox. We can acknowledge that iPhones are needlessly closed platforms while also acknowledging that there are legitimate purpose-built computers in various form factors (gaming consoles being a good example.)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think that's unlikely to happen, for a host of consumer experience and market viability reasons: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30280457 One should note that Meta could create their own Android third party store right now, like Amazon has (pretty much only to support their Kindle Fire devices), yet they haven't had any interest in doing so. One could claim that's because Android users don't pay as much for ap…
On the other hand the Play store is not being policed for days tracking and many apps are stuffed to the brim with tracking libraries. So they really don't have a need to do this. Apple can still make it difficult for them though. They can just remove the forbidden APIs and sandbox apps better. If they do this they don't even have to bother to review as thoroughly anymore. The big benefit is that Apple no longer gets…
Access to your photos, contacts, device identifiers, etc are all gated on sandbox entitlements, and if you remove the App Store review process then you remove the gate the prevents an app from saying "give me read/write access to the whole file system", "give me read/write access to the photos on the device", etc
Then I hope Apple allows an option to enable an opt out for these third party stores
Android has an explicit opt-in for allowing sideloading, and a whopping 0.06% of users currently utilize it. I really don't know why this issue is causing such a big fuss in the iOS ecosystem.
2) Because apple doesn't want to compete
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Exactly. They are general purpose computers, artificially crippled by their manufacturer, to prevent their (supposed) owner from using their full potential.
This is a silly argument. Nobody is checking their bank account on their Xbox. We can acknowledge that iPhones are needlessly closed platforms while also acknowledging that there are legitimate purpose-built computers in various form factors (gaming consoles being a good example.)
People were making a lot of noise about Sony retroactively removing functionality not too long ago.
But even if we accept the bogus argument that a console (a behemoth CPU with 100s of watts of power available) is not a general purpose system, that's not relevant:
Why should a company have to go through Sony or Microsoft's stores to buy games for their console? What makes consoles somehow different from phones? - I would put money on the primary apps people buy from the App Store being games?
Claiming the Sony/MS make a loss on console sales isn't relevant either - firstly because they're charging ~30% on games with an average sale price in the region of $60 they make up that "loss" very quickly, secondly neither company expends significant (any?) resources developing features for their consoles once they've been sold (vs. Apple that is still providing major updates and functionality to devices 5 years after they stopped being sold)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The problem is when some critical app forces you to use their store. I hope at the very least apple can mandate that the additional app stores enforce the same privacy and safety rules, or would the EU consider that allowing people to not be spied on be to much of an infringement of the rights of business?
Apple ecosystem isn't the bastion of privacy and security you think it is.
And yeah, it isn't perfect, but actively making it less secure isn't going make it better