I wish game consoles were open, but I don't care as much because they're single purpose. A PS4 is not designed to be your primary computer.
An iPhone, by contrast, will be many people's primary or even they're only computer. What does it mean for our society if a single company has control over what that computer can display?
I see this issue as broader than just competition—I think it's analogous to free speech.
There is a moral/philosophical connection to free speech and the app store pseudo-monopolies (code as speech), but it also happens to be very concrete in Apple's case: you literally cannot tell customers through your app what other alternatives might be used to pay you.
(And before someone comments about how this doesn't conflict with the 1st Amendment, you are obviously correct; but free speech is as much a societal value as a legal construct, and is not limited to the Bill of Rights as its sole champion.)
You view this as a bad thing. As a consumer, I view it as a good thing. I’m not sure if folks remember what “apps on mobile” were like before Apple came along, but it was the goddamn Wild West. The fact that it’s walled in, that I’m not going to get pwned, that my parents won’t (and won’t be tempted to by the promise of an extra $0.99 saving) is to my mind, a good thing.
If all this competition that the article talked about was such a good thing, apps would be cheaper on Android, and I, as a consumer, would switch. Fact is, the fact that Tinder et al are now bypassing Google’s mechanisms isn’t a good thing to me at all. It’s more the reason to stay on iOS.
The article writer is pissed he can’t get access to me without paying Apple’s toll, but what he doesn’t understand is that I am like it like that.
If Apple allowed side-loading tomorrow, their curated App Store wouldn't disappear. You would absolutely have the choice to only download software from the iOS App Store, where Apple is checking everything for you.
I don't oppose the App Store existing. I use it myself, and it's generally a great experience for the reasons you describe.
However, I don't think that a link that says "Click here to start your Netflix subscription" threatens that experience in the slightest; it's only a threat to Apple's revenue model. (While there are legitimate concerns about fraud/phishing/etc, that can be reviewed on a content level by Apple, as they already do in other respects.)
There are perhaps arguments against allowing side-loading; even if the process is cumbersome for non-techies, there remains a "dancing bunnies" [0] problem that might lead to malware on Grandma's phone (or, just a very poor software experience).
But even there, I'm not convinced that there isn't a reasonable tradeoff. While the needs for macOS and iOS are clearly different, the former has a very reasonable default that allows unsigned executables, while discouraging them to non-technical users, and giving a great experience buying and installing software through the App Store. (Strictly speaking, one can pseudo-sideload on iOS via XCode if one has the source, but at the cost of $99!)
I think a more reasonable policy might be requiring all apps to be code-signed (so malware and pirated apps can be shut down), but allow side-loading with a great number of scary warnings. Most people will still prefer the App Store experience, and as with the Mac App Store, the increased audience will usually be worth the 30% cut (which, by the way, if faced with "competition" from side-loading, may be pressured down into a more reasonable 10-20% range.)
Whether it's Apple, Nintendo, or Amazon, any platform that makes itself a mandatory middle-man between third-party buyers and sellers is rent-seeking extraction at best, and a net economic loss at worst (preventing value-creating relationships from existing at all). In my opinion, smart and reasonable regulations of such marketplace platforms would be a win for both economic growth and personal freedom.
> but free speech is as much a societal value as a legal construct, and is not limited to the Bill of Rights as its sole champion.)
Where, in the US, is the requirement that everyone has to let anyone say anything enshrined? AFAIK, it's not, and is (very) often confused with the Bill of Rights version.
It's enshrined in you and me. :) Law is not the only mechanism for upholding cultural values and norms.
One important distinction is that free expression is not limited to the "right to say anything"; it also includes the right to listen to the expression of others. See, for example, the rich history of librarians resisting turning over records of who reads what books, which could result in a chilling effect where people are scared to read controversial material.
> this is literally every major OS right now.... Mac, iOS, Android, Chromium, Windows....
No it's not! I can run whatever software I want on Windows, Mac, Android and Chromium.
> these are proprietary, private sector companies who fiduciary responsibilities to their shareholders, not government entities.
I am not accusing Apple of literally breaking the first amendment. I do, however, think their actions have consequences for our society and democracy.
Imagine if side-loading books onto a Kindle was impossible, and Amazon implemented an App Store-style review process for everything sold on the Kindle store. Would you consider that a threat to free speech?
Well, consider what happened when someone made an iOS game about Apple factory workers in Foxconn: Apple killed it [1].
Now, it is absolutely Apple's prerogative to determine what is allowed on their storefront, just as any retailer can decide what to stock on its shelves. However, by completely blocking any form of side-loading, Apple is making decisions about what type of content their users are allowed to see on their devices. That's a problem if the iPhone is someone's primary computer, and perhaps their only computer.
Sure, and it's great that they provide that option, but it also severely limits the capabilities of what an app can do. I also don't think it's a coincidence that Apple has been dragging its feet on support for progressive web apps.
Why do we chain ourselves to such a limiting construct?
Companies; S,C, LLC. They did not exist, and by request they were willed into 'personhood' at the signing of a government pen. They were not required to approve the incorporation request. So, I ask this:
Why do we not enforce incorporated entities to also abide by the Bill of Rights as being extensions of the government?
They certainly weren't born, and there's no corporate death penalty. So it tells me they're an extension of government, as they were willed into being with their explicit consent.
I don't want private companies to be beholden to the same standard of free speech as the government!
Barns & Noble should be able to decide what types of books to put on their selves. Hacker News's moderators should be able to make decisions about what types of content lead to intellectual curiosity. And while I strongly believe all software platforms should allow sideloading, I also think Apple's curated, "safe" App Store is a great (optional) service for consumers who want it.
It makes more sense to think of iPhones/iPads as consoles. They're just as closed down and controlled. Some people are fine with console gaming, many are fine with limited computing on their phones.
If you're not, there's a lot of Android phones, varying from open to extremely open, for general purpose computing.
You typical developer on iOS is targeting a broad spectrum of hardware (even within the iOS line, the software is able to run on various iphone skus dating back possibly 7-9 years).
Console? When I ship a PS4 build, it is THE PS4 BUILD. It has optimizations designed to maximize the memory buses that ship with the PS4 and the PS4 only.
I'm telling you the difference between a console (or embedded platform) versus a general computing device. There is a blurry line to be sure, but the smartphone and a gaming console are clearly on opposite sides of the line. Consoles have dedicated hardware for antialiasing, texture streaming, etc.
Well, if they are using the phone as their primary computer, it must be good enough. How is Apple stopping people from doing what they want to do with their phone?
And before you bring up an esoteric development scenario, I assure you that developers aren’t using their phone as their primary computer.
An iPhone, by contrast, will be many people's primary or even they're only computer. What does it mean for our society if a single company has control over what that computer can display?
I see this issue as broader than just competition—I think it's analogous to free speech.