6 ms·

Microsoft could block dodgy kernel drivers while still allowing game stores ... These are not inherently related. I think OP is aware that competing music apps

Microsoft could block dodgy kernel drivers while still allowing game stores ... These are not inherently related. I think OP is aware that competing music apps are allowed. They're making an analogy about banning competing app stores, just because itunes is good doesn't mean we don't want competition ... the same concept applies.

soraminazuki 6y ago
Dodgy kernel drivers are just one example of user hostile software. Given the past and current track record of the advertising, entertainment, and gaming industries, would you really want to be forced to install an app store run by any of them? If this was purely about getting something like F-Droid into iDevices or side loading for power users, it would be very beneficial for users. Apple deserves some of the negativity for not letting that happen. However, known user hostile players trying to have a go at people's personal devices under the guise of competition is something that we as consumers should be equally wary of. Because in the end, we won't be given much choice. Monopolies are not something exclusive to Apple, and big players will use their own monopolistic power to coerce users to install their privacy invading app store.
- BenTheElder 6y ago
  It's a pretty excellent example precisely because the operating system typically already has controls over this behavior (installing kernel drivers..) > However, known user hostile players trying to have a go at people's personal devices under the guise of competition is something that we as consumers should be equally wary of. Is epic user hostile? Other than offering temporarily exclusive applications their store does not seem hostile ... > Because in the end, we won't be given much choice. Monopolies are not something exclusive to Apple, and big players will use their own monopolistic power to coerce users to install their privacy invading app store. Defeating hypothetical monopolistic practices by denying user choice and persisting an existing monopolistic practice sure is a take.
  - soraminazuki 6y ago
    > Is epic user hostile? Let's see an example of dodgy kernel drivers. How about Easy Anti-Cheat? Go to their page at https://www.easy.ac/en-us/ https://www.easy.ac/en-us/. Guess who develops it? > hypothetical monopolistic practices Hypothetical monopolistic practices really? Because I vividly recall Facebook skirting App Store security policies to make users install a privacy invading VPN app, which they also used to gather data on competitors[1]. But I'm sure that's fine because people have alternatives to Facebook. Or perhaps not[2]. [1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15007454 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15007454 [2]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25363366 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25363366
    - BenTheElder 6y ago
      > Let's see an example of dodgy kernel drivers. How about Easy Anti-Cheat? Go to their page at https://www.easy.ac/en-us/ https://www.easy.ac/en-us/. Guess who develops it? Their store does not install or require this. Specific applications require it for online play (and generally only for online play...) Microsoft does not ban this behavior on any storefront, AFAIK. Having a single storefront would not change this. > Hypothetical monopolistic practices really? Because I vividly Facebook skirting App Store security policies to make users install a privacy invading VPN app, which they also used to gather data on competitors[1]. Amusingly this occurred under the current iOS app restrictions, which clearly didn't prevent this. An argument could be made for certain high-risk extension point access (such as VPN) could be limited independently of general apps, but the fact that there's a bad VPN app is a silly excuse for restricting the install of simple applications. The app sandbox should provide plenty of protection, and if the user opts to give apps permissions, that's on their choice. I really don't think users are going to install an app store that requires the usage of a sketchy VPN app ... If this were the case, surely it would exist already on android :-) > But I'm sure that's fine because people have alternatives to Facebook. Or perhaps not[2]. [2]: is exactly why we don't need to leave Apple's monopoly in place to "defeat other monopolies" ... we have other tools for that. Let users (and their representatives etc.) decide.
      - 6y ago

soraminazuki 6y ago

Dodgy kernel drivers are just one example of user hostile software. Given the past and current track record of the advertising, entertainment, and gaming industries, would you really want to be forced to install an app store run by any of them? If this was purely about getting something like F-Droid into iDevices or side loading for power users, it would be very beneficial for users. Apple deserves some of the negativity for not letting that happen. However, known user hostile players trying to have a go at people's personal devices under the guise of competition is something that we as consumers should be equally wary of. Because in the end, we won't be given much choice. Monopolies are not something exclusive to Apple, and big players will use their own monopolistic power to coerce users to install their privacy invading app store.

BenTheElder 6y ago
It's a pretty excellent example precisely because the operating system typically already has controls over this behavior (installing kernel drivers..) > However, known user hostile players trying to have a go at people's personal devices under the guise of competition is something that we as consumers should be equally wary of. Is epic user hostile? Other than offering temporarily exclusive applications their store does not seem hostile ... > Because in the end, we won't be given much choice. Monopolies are not something exclusive to Apple, and big players will use their own monopolistic power to coerce users to install their privacy invading app store. Defeating hypothetical monopolistic practices by denying user choice and persisting an existing monopolistic practice sure is a take.
- soraminazuki 6y ago
  > Is epic user hostile? Let's see an example of dodgy kernel drivers. How about Easy Anti-Cheat? Go to their page at https://www.easy.ac/en-us/ https://www.easy.ac/en-us/. Guess who develops it? > hypothetical monopolistic practices Hypothetical monopolistic practices really? Because I vividly recall Facebook skirting App Store security policies to make users install a privacy invading VPN app, which they also used to gather data on competitors[1]. But I'm sure that's fine because people have alternatives to Facebook. Or perhaps not[2]. [1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15007454 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15007454 [2]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25363366 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25363366
  - BenTheElder 6y ago
    > Let's see an example of dodgy kernel drivers. How about Easy Anti-Cheat? Go to their page at https://www.easy.ac/en-us/ https://www.easy.ac/en-us/. Guess who develops it? Their store does not install or require this. Specific applications require it for online play (and generally only for online play...) Microsoft does not ban this behavior on any storefront, AFAIK. Having a single storefront would not change this. > Hypothetical monopolistic practices really? Because I vividly Facebook skirting App Store security policies to make users install a privacy invading VPN app, which they also used to gather data on competitors[1]. Amusingly this occurred under the current iOS app restrictions, which clearly didn't prevent this. An argument could be made for certain high-risk extension point access (such as VPN) could be limited independently of general apps, but the fact that there's a bad VPN app is a silly excuse for restricting the install of simple applications. The app sandbox should provide plenty of protection, and if the user opts to give apps permissions, that's on their choice. I really don't think users are going to install an app store that requires the usage of a sketchy VPN app ... If this were the case, surely it would exist already on android :-) > But I'm sure that's fine because people have alternatives to Facebook. Or perhaps not[2]. [2]: is exactly why we don't need to leave Apple's monopoly in place to "defeat other monopolies" ... we have other tools for that. Let users (and their representatives etc.) decide.
    - 6y ago