the internet was fine before appstores. sure, occasionally an idiot downloaded virus.exe, but that was never the end of the world.
The CSO of Maersk might have a different opinion on this.
who?
The App Store was always authoritarian
61–70 of 111 posts
Re: The App Store was always authoritarian
#62Earlier quoted context omitted.
I get that point as a person who frequents HN, but for many regular people that’s probably a net positive. People would install random apps or browser extensions just to gain an advantage in some Facebook click came. Having some kind of hidden “I know what I’m doing” mode would make sense, but would probably defeated the same way as “I’ll teach you how to open browser console” to paste some command exploits.
Just as a thought experiment: Governments could mandate banks to prevent their customers from spending beyond what'll go to rent/mortgage. It'd certainly prevent overdue or missed payments. Would that be a net positive, or would that prevent or slow people from learning fiscal responsibility and the benefits that go along with that?
Isn’t that exactly what over draft limits and credit ratings are already doing?
Re: The App Store was always authoritarian
#63Re: The App Store was always authoritarian
#64Corporate tax in China is 25% Corporate tax in Apple land is 30% Funny?
Comparing apples (pun intended) to... a country? Profit vs revenue.
I used "Apple land" deliberately, a single unelected gatekeeper stealing 30% straight off the top line feels more authoritarian than China's 25% on profit
If Apple were a country, it wouldn't just be authoritarian, it'd be a dictatorship with a 30% flat tax on revenue, no appeals, and the power to erase your business overnight
Hence the parallel, but yeah fair point, I wrote the comment too fast
Re: The App Store was always authoritarian
#65[flagged]
The point is that it's all just an excuse. So long as the app store is your only alternative they can charge 30% and get away with it, and they'll say whatever you want to hear so long as it lets them continue to do that. They don't really give a shit about you, they just want your money.
> they can charge 30% and get away with it
Ok so what? No really. Who charges less and handles hosting, unlimited downloads, updates and provides a reach to millions of users?
Steam takes how much? $100 PER FUCKING APP!!? Google? Xbox? PlayStation? Nintendo? Good luck putting your crap on GoDaddy and reaching even 10 users a week, without a LOT of words in a LOT of mouths.
As a user, I have plenty of nits to pick with Apple [0], but again as a user, the 30% ""aPpLe TaX"" isn't one of them, and even as a dev it'll be long before it becomes an issue to even think about.
The only people bitching about it are the mobsters wanting a bigger cut of the pie. Who started this whole hullabaloo anyway? Epic, a paragon of the common folk? hah. And scummy corps like Match.com the owners of Tinder etc. wow
Yeah downvote this but literally no actual user ever whined about the 30% like you guys do.
Users moan about shitty shovelware, shitty search. What we SHOULD be pitchforking about is not why Apple takes 30%, but about why is Apple not using all that 30% to IMPROVE the App Store for everyone??
Re: The App Store was always authoritarian
#66Earlier quoted context omitted.
The CSO of Maersk might have a different opinion on this.
who?
The C(I)SO, chief information security officer of Maersk, the worlds largest logistics company that lost billions to an infected accounting program that wrecked their global infrastructure at once.
Re: The App Store was always authoritarian
#67Earlier quoted context omitted.
Right? These comments are so bewildering. I like the design and UX, and the promise to at least a bit more privacy, but if I had to use android or windows or Ubuntu tomorrow, it’d be another device that I use. How you could even expend so much of your time to think about computers more than necessary to use them, much less worship a brand, is beyond me.
I think both of you entirely misread the top level comment. He's saying that owning and using an Apple product requires you to engage in behaviors akin to worship, I imagine e.g. accepting Apple's way of doing X as correct by default (~worship) rather than wanting to customize something based on your thoughts and preferences (questioning).
But that’s just as wrong. Apple products are definitely opinionated, but using a product that’s meant to be used a specific way doesn’t have anything to do with worship? If your personal preferences overlap with Apples design choices, good for you; personally, I prefer to not having lots of ways to tinker with irrelevant details, because I’m very susceptible for that kind of busywork that keeps me from focusing on actual work. But if you feel otherwise, there’s a wide range of alternative products to choose from.
The insistence of some people that Apple products are the devils work because they don’t fit their personal preferences is bogus to me. If you don’t like it, don’t buy it.
Re: The App Store was always authoritarian
#68Earlier quoted context omitted.
Just as a thought experiment: Governments could mandate banks to prevent their customers from spending beyond what'll go to rent/mortgage. It'd certainly prevent overdue or missed payments. Would that be a net positive, or would that prevent or slow people from learning fiscal responsibility and the benefits that go along with that?
Isn’t that exactly what over draft limits and credit ratings are already doing?
Overdraft limits restrict how much into the negative your bank account can go. Credit ratings are designed to help paint a story about risk, for lenders to consider when deciding how much money you can be loaned, and at what interest rate.
Both of those things existed in the early 2000s, but if the risk of a loan can (appear to) be shifted onto someone else, banks can and will issue bigger and riskier loans to people, and will reward the individual people selling the loans personally.
Re: The App Store was always authoritarian
#69Well written, but its starting point seems to be “Apple used to be force for good”. — It is a corporation. It wants your money. This is not new. This is not any different from Lilly (Mounjaro), or Google, or any other, er… corporation. The idea that a CEO will stand up to his democratically elected dictator is absurd. Why should he, when the dictator is merely implementing the policies he said he would during the cam…
Author here. You seem to have missed the bleedingly obvious point that responsibilities are a function of scale. Nothing you allege was missed, and indeed it was considered at length in the longer series on these topics: https://infrequently.org/series/browser-choice-must-matter/
Not sure what you mean by “responsibilities are a function of scale”. “With great power comes great responsibility”?
Like I said, it is a good article, about an important topic, but you already knew that. I mostly agree with you - not that my opinion is particularly important. It prompted me to comment for only the second time.
I’ll take a lot at the rest of the series later.
Re: The App Store was always authoritarian
#70Maybe it's not a great idea to allow a company to decide what software users can run, and I am inclined to believe that Murphy's Law will apply. Ultimately, software is freedom of speech.
It seems we expect the government to step in and fix this. But it’s not a neutral party. Even before Trump collusion between moneyed interests and politicians was high. Those who hold the money hold the power. And those with the money have decided that even free speech has worn out its welcome. To the point of using its military to invade its own cities.
I just don’t see us righting ourselves through the electoral process. If we are ever going to fix our government it will need to happen through mass strikes. That’s the most credible alternative. In the meantime our state of affairs will likely continue to decay. Climate change, authoritarianism, debt and austerity. These are only going to get worse. Eventually we will be forced to get our collective act together.