14 ms·

I think you have to appreciate just how egregious the behaviour of Microsoft was in the 90s. We're talking about systematic attempts to use their absolutely dom

• beeboobaa 3y ago
  So I guess apple learned how to be slightly more subtle, and to let their rabid fanbase do some of their work for them. It's still wild to me how they managed to get people to argue against the freedom to install whatever they want on their device.
  • pb7 3y ago
    People buy product. People like product. People that don’t buy product try to change product. >rabid fanbase
    • nolok 3y ago
      Yeah, those linux and netscape crazies trying to stop OS monopolies and internet explorer bundling. Let Microsoft sell the better product to their users !
    • ginko 3y ago
      I own an iphone (because google is even worse) but I want to run Firefox
    • Elfir3 3y ago
      Unfortunately the impact is not limited to Apple product, but a wider ecosystem. For example the browser. If a feature is not implemented in Safari, as only available browser on IOS, every website needs to be compatible with it. Songs must be available on Apple Music if you want to be available for Apple owners...
  • chatmasta 3y ago
    I think it's a combination of subtlety and normalization in the rest of the industry.
  • valianteffort 3y ago
    I wouldn't say the fanbase is arguing against it. Apple just have a good understanding of their average user. While you may have no issue installing unsigned apps and dealing with any troubleshooting, their average user, or most users, don't. It's not to say they don't have a financial incentive to disallow app installs outside of their App Store, but there is a predictable cost in terms of support man hours and device troubleshooting they will incur in addition to lost revenue. So long as it is legal for them to continue business as usual, they have no incetive to allow it and the large majority of the userbase don't care.
    • nolok 3y ago
      Ahem, let me show you how that's not it : > While you may have no issue using a different browser/media player/OS/... and dealing with any troubleshooting, their average user, or most users, don't.
    • throw0101a 3y ago
      > […] but there is a predictable cost in terms of support man hours and device troubleshooting they will incur in addition to lost revenue. There is also the cost of externalities of more systems being infected that the rest of the connected world has to deal with.
    • beeboobaa 3y ago
      You're doing it right now.
      • bscip 3y ago
        I feel like that must be a sarcastic response without the "/s"
      • valianteffort 3y ago
        Congratulations, you lack even the mental capacity to see that I was explaining the situation not defending it. How do you manage to breathe on your own I wonder.
    • amelius 3y ago
  • laborcontract 3y ago
    Your framing is disingenuous by trying to frame this as an uneconomic and non-rational fanboying. I don't think you truly appreciate how comfortable I am handing my parents an iPhone, and how uncomfortable I was helping them with their Windows computer replete with multiple spyware browser toolbars back in the day. The onslaught of quasi malware on their computers was sickening, and they'd always ask me about insane popups that would show up due to some pre-installed thing nobody had control over.
    • realusername 3y ago
      Like the appstore is any better, remember that the vast majority of money made on the appstore is for casino-like apps which I would not be comfortable giving to my parents or my family.
      • laborcontract 3y ago
        Casino apps werent pre-installed. Do you really not remember what Windows computers were like, fresh out of the box, back in the day? Hardware companies pre-installed any and all sorts of software from vendors. Spyware, adware, gambling games, toolbars, "free" trials to internet services. Computers used to be up to their neck in absolute garbage.
        • realusername 3y ago
          I do, people installed those malware by clicking on random ads, about the same way they now install those undesirable apps, funny how history kind of repeats itself. I guess the biggest difference is that the OS manufacturer now gets a cut on those.
          • lotsofpulp 3y ago
            And yet for some reason my dad never has any malware on his iOS and iPadOS devices, whereas he always did on Windows devices.
  • airpoint 3y ago
    Your post reads to me as if you thought all users shared the same exact needs as you do That’d be quite an ignorant POV to take on IMO
  • ben_w 3y ago
    > It's still wild to me how they managed to get people to argue against the freedom to install whatever they want on their device. This isn't because of Apple, or at least it isn't in my case. Even as an iPhone app developer with the means to do so whenever I want, and even though I find Apple's content restrictions derisory and "big brother"-y, I actively don't want a system that can install "whatever". This is due to all the malware everywhere on the internet, and owing to this unfortunate reality, also means I think it is unwise even to have 3rd party libraries as project dependencies. I have an entire spare computer dedicated to learning scientific python because I don't feel I can rely on the absence of vulnerabilities in the stuff. This makes me sad. I miss the old days of 2002 where I didn't feel any reason to worry about random apps from random websites. But part of my carefree youth was that I had a Performa 5200 running OS 8, which wasn't a popular targets for malware authors, and another big part was that my bank didn't have an app. But before someone replies to point out that malware gets past the App Store tests: yes, of course it does, I see all this as a "defence in depth" strategy, not a silver bullet.
    • didntcheck 3y ago
      Why would having the ability to install sideloaded apps change this? Apps will not be able to just install themselves or other apps without prompting. And we've already had zero-click exploits in Safari leading to entire phone rootkitting more than once without sideloading
      • ben_w 3y ago
        > But before someone replies to point out that malware gets past the App Store tests: yes, of course it does, I see all this as a "defence in depth" strategy, not a silver bullet.
      • QuadmasterXLII 3y ago
        Most of the apps I install are mandatory apps. It's not illegal to not have them, but if you don't install you can't access your doctor, file an insurance claim, bank, see your childs grades, enter the front door of your child's preschool, etc. All of these are malicious actors who will steal as much of my data as possible at all times, but I do actually need a preschool. As long as I can only install these through the app store, we are at an uneasy truce where these apps comply with app store rules.
  • lolinder 3y ago
    Android and F-Droid user here. I choose to buy hardware that allows me to install what I want, but I also consistently advocate for the right of consumers to buy into a closed ecosystem. There is a large class of technology users that is uninterested in installing whatever they want on their device. They want their device to be predictable, they want their app store to be curated, and they don't want to deal with dark patterns on a company by company basis. These customers choose Apple because it provides a tightly integrated experience. Forcing Apple to alter enough of their rules will eventually cause that user experience to no longer be an option, which is bad for consumer choice.
    • lukeschlather 3y ago
      The problem with Apple's walled garden is that there's literally zero consumer choice for interoperability. If you have 10 devices and 4 of them are Apple, it doesn't matter that 6 of them are running F-Droid. Anything that requires you to install your app on all 10 devices is impossible to do. Everyone is limited to what Apple allows in their walled garden whether they choose it or not.
      • lolinder 3y ago
        Yes, if you buy walled-garden devices you won't have a great time trying to install things that were meant for devices outside of the walled garden. I can see how that is unfortunate, but I'm not convinced that it's an argument for tearing down the walls. The alternatives that most here on HN are pushing for would ultimately lead to a walled garden no longer being an option for consumers at all. I think the status quo is preferable: consumers who don't want to participate in the walled garden can choose to not buy devices that are explicitly sold as being part of said garden.
        • beeboobaa 3y ago
          > The alternatives that most here on HN are pushing for would ultimately lead to a walled garden no longer being an option for consumers at all. I think the status quo is preferable: consumers who don't want to participate in the walled garden can choose to not buy devices that are explicitly sold as being part of said garden. Why do apple fans always come up with bizarre fantasies like this? This isn't a problem for Android today, and it won't be a problem for mainstream apps when apple is finally forced to open up thanks to the EU. More than 99% of the users will never install anything other than from the official Play store. But they are allowed to without Big Daddy Apple telling them "No". And that's what matters.
• jsnell 3y ago
  Apple is predatory on a level that 1990s Microsoft could not have dreamed of, which is all enabled by Windows being an open platform while iOS is locked down with strict technical measures. Microsoft would make competition harder by bundling "good enough" versions of competing software into Windows, with business deals restricting pre-installs of competing operating systems (if you pre-install Windows on 100% of machines, you'll get a massively better deal than when installing on it on 95%), and (arguably) by making interoperability harder by not having stable documented interfaces and having the interfaces change with new releases every few years. That was bad. But Apple... Apple hasn't been just making competing harder, but outright impossible. It's one thing to compete against a free pre-installed product. It's another thing to try to compete when the platform owner straight out forbids you from shipping a product that competes with them, or applies draconian business terms to the competition that their own business units get to ignore. They weren't just making interoperability harder by not documenting interfaces, but (in the case of iMessage) by actively breaking any attempt to interoperate.
  • carlosjobim 3y ago
    > Apple hasn't been just making competing harder, but outright impossible. That's why Android marketshare is much larger than iOS marketshare and why Windows marketshare is much larger than MacOS marketshare. After reading maybe 8000 posts complaining about Apple "monopoly" I just can't get my head around how hackers can earnestly believe such a thing.
    • kayodelycaon 3y ago
      It makes a lot of sense to me. I think a lot of people were less affected by Microsoft’s actions than by Apple’s. After all, Microsoft didn’t stop people from making money off their platform or modifying their computers. And Microsoft was three decades ago. Apple is causing people far more harm now than they remember Microsoft doing in the past. (Assuming they were around for it in the first place.) Edit: I should have said "a lot of the people talking" instead of just "a lot of people". I was around for Microsoft and would classify them as evil. The worst you can say about Apple is they are greedy. For all of Apple's flaws, they are competing in the consumer market on merit.
• marcosdumay 3y ago
  > deliberate sabotage of open standards process to prevent the web taking off Whether Safari is this way deliberately or by chance, is something to be found on a court. But Apple's behavior here isn't different from the Microsoft one with IE.