The reason iPad is good is not because you're not allowed to choose what browser engine to use. It's, largely, because the hardware is simply better than anything else on the market.
I think it is amusing that there is a contingent of Apple fans that actually believe the platform will get significantly worse because people are allowed to sideload and install browsers that have their own browser engines. I think this is a truly ridiculous line of argument. I don't like the other line of argument, which goes somewhere along the lines of "We should tolerate Microsoft-esque anti-competitive behavior because otherwise Google Chrome's anti-competitive behavior might win", but that is literally a better argument, to be fair.
We know it will because we remember what life was like before. Sucky platforms that were never good enough, always some weird piece of software that you thought was benign gunking up your system. It really did suck. And then…most of the problems were gone and things just worked.
I’m ok if this is actually all optional, but I don’t think the anti-Apple crowd is going to be content until iOS is just another Windows. That somehow it won’t just be an unlock that we have buy into and know what we’re are getting into.
Why do people think that iOS will become like Windows when we all know that iOS (and Android) were designed with app sandboxing from start and not like Windows where a program can do anything it wants to.
EU could decide next that app sandboxing is anticompetitive restrictive gatekeeper behavior and force Apple to change that too. It too violates the ‘it is my hardware let me do what I want’ ethos expressed in this comment section.
Because what we really need are less choices to save us right? “Look at all those poor sheeple buying Apple rather than a more open platform, they shouldn’t be making that choice so let’s take it away from them.”
If their bad choices have negative effects on others, for example developers being exploited, then yes the choice should be made for them. It's the same as smoking or drinking. When you smoke, there are harmful effects to third parties so the government limits the use of those products. When millions of people make choices that lead to millions of other people being exploited, governments should get involved. That is the entire point of modern legal systems. Free markets until negative externalities become out of control and then the government steps in.
The idea that iOS has been a negative for developers is a hilarious one. Funny that all those poor developers choose to develop on iOS before android because that’s where the money is.
Is it though? Before the iphone desktops were king. On desktops
- developers could use any programming language and there was a standard language that was well supported on pretty much all systems (C), so no need to learn 4 different language ecosystems to target different platforms if you arent a language nerd.
- you could release your software to users under any licence you see fit.
- Software SDK's billed with flat fee's instead of revenue sharing.
- Developers could develop in any environment and didn't have to depend on heavy, buggy IDE's.
- Cross compilation for other systems was common. You didn't need a system from the target vendor to build and distribute software (although for testing purposes it was still common).
- There weren't arbitrary rules on how you are allowed to monetize your software.
The developer experience since the release of mobile systems has dramatically decreased. To say that is not true is just naive. These electronic markets will form no matter what. If apple and google was wiped of the face of the earth today, new markets will form within months. Apple and Google act like the markets are their God given property but in reality they are piggy backing off their first mover's advantage.
Honestly, i feel sad to see your type of attitude on HackerNews.
Maybe that which is best for a mobile computing platform is different than a desktop one. I like my iOS and macOS each in their respective place today.
> Sucky platforms that were never good enough, always some weird piece of software that you thought was benign gunking up your system.
This is a category error. Your iPhone isn't more stable because Apple charges a premium to developers so that they can invite you to use their apps, it's more stable because of all of the good decisions they make technically around the platform.
Your iPhone isn't more stable because Apple refuses to allow competition to their apps. Just like you mentioned elsewhere, if you don't want third party apps, do not install them. Please do not come for my freedom to run the apps I please. Don't piss on me and call it rain.
Your Mac is also a very nice experience, but Apple isn't gouging and restricting the developers of your favorite Mac apps (much), so no one is complaining about MacOS.
Welp, company did stupid thing, time to let the OS company have 100% control and profit over the entire computer.
A bit of an outsized response, no?
To be clear, I disagree with Zoom's rationale (avoiding a single confirmation click when the zoom website launches zoom), and I agree with Apple automatically disabling that server for it's customers. That doesn't mean I think we should throw the baby out with the bathwater.
No, it isn’t. It’s been proven over three decades of computing that companies - even reputable ones - will do all sorts of crap to your computer.
I’m very careful what I install on my computers. I will install any random crap on iOS devices that I would never install on my computer because they are sandboxed.
Not purposefully, but there was a version of Chrome where the installer would leave your Mac inoperable if you had System Integrity Protection turned off.
Yeah see, where I don't see eye-to-eye on here is the idea that Windows is bad because it lets you download and run whatever you want. I don't agree at all. I think Windows is just bad, and in fact, it gets worse as they try to push for an Apple-esque App Store model and slowly add roadblocks to """side-loading""" (or as we called it in my youth, "installing software".)
Likewise, I don't think that's what makes iOS good, either. I don't think it ever was. I think that it's understandable that Apple's approach to this would in fact be to make a "walled garden", especially given that it is wildly profitable, but Apple already had beloved computers long before they started doing stuff like this. Yes, to be sure, the Macintosh had and has plenty of flaws, but I do not think that anyone's goal is to turn iOS into Windows, and Apple would retain a visegrip on the iOS experience just due to how locked down modern operating systems are. Immutable image based operating systems with heavy restrictions on what usermode apps can do are going to be inherently much more stable, even when faced with untrusted usermode apps.
The thing is, while I get why I and others get categorized as part of the "anti-Apple" crowd, it's not because I simply hate Apple for no reason whatsoever. Like many others, I desperately wanted to like Apple, and then they just crapped all over what I consider to be my demographic of users. Please understand: to me, I am not THAT loyal to ANY vendor. I am a user of computers first and foremost.
But what's worse is, I have to deal with the knock-on effects of this. My biggest pet issue is absolutely their tirade against patent-unencumbered formats like Opus, which impacts people I know who prefer iPhone because it's all they've ever known. "How can I get WebMs to play in Discord/My web browser/etc?" You own a computer where the manufacturer decided that you're not allowed to install codecs or alternate browser engines, so you can basically go fuck yourself.
"Bicycles of the mind" my ass.
In any case, I think there is no slippery slope here. Apple is not going to volunteer control of their ecosystem away, so god knows they're going to do the minimum necessary to comply with any of this. So I think the impact on the overall iOS ecosystem will probably not be that substantial once all is said and done.
Even on Android, app stores outside of the Play Store are relatively rare, and attempts to circumvent the Play Store for the purposes of making more money haven't done very well. Even on Windows, it's hard to compete with or avoid selling on Steam, because it's got so much momentum and users generally like it as a platform for buying games on. Apple has more than a level playing field, they have a decade head start, total control over the platform, and so much more; They are far from at risk of control slipping.
If they're worried about anything, it is probably quarterly financial reports not being as good as they possibly could be.
I can go out and buy a windows machine if I want. Or a windows mobile phone back in the day, or an android phone today. There are so many alternatives to Apple products that if I wanted that kind of platform, it already exists and can be chosen! For Android…in China the play store basically doesn’t even exist, so phones with non-play stores aren’t rare at all.
So you basically want to force your preferences on me, and that really just annoys me. You don’t have to buy an iPhone or an iPad for yourself, you have other choices that better suit your needs, so leave my preferences alone please. I don’t like being told what I have to buy.
I mean, plenty has been written about the rationale behind the Digital Markets Act (DMA), but you could start with the EU’s own explanation:
> The Digital Markets Act is the EU’s law to make the markets in the digital sector fairer and more contestable. In order to do so, the Digital Markets Act (“DMA”) establishes a set of clearly defined objective criteria to identify “gatekeepers”.
> Gatekeepers are large digital platforms providing so called core platform services, such as online search engines, app stores, messenger services. Gatekeepers will have to comply with the do’s (i.e. obligations) and don’ts (i.e. prohibitions) listed in the DMA.
> The DMA is one of the first regulatory tools to comprehensively regulate the gatekeeper power of the largest digital companies. The DMA complements, but does not change EU competition rules, which continue to apply fully.
I'm missing the part where someone is forcing you to install non-sanctioned apps. If Apple is adding all the value you say they are, what do they (and you) have to lose?
> So you basically want to force your preferences on me
No one is forcing you to install third party apps. Are you really unable to control the impulse to install third party app stores on your device? You need Apple to stop you from doing something you don't want to do in the first place?
Just because you want to stick in the Apple approved apps doesn't mean that I should have to do the same on my own iPhone.
Why? Up until now I was entitled to choose a strong platform that forced the developers to play nicely. Now I lost that so indeed as you're saying, not using the app is my only choice.
But that's bad, I want the strong platform back. I left Android just few years ago precisely because I liked the guarantees of the iOS platform - now it's going to be just another shitty privacy nightmare like the hellscape of Android I left.
I don't understand why people can't just buy an Android if that's what they like.
> I don't understand why people can't just buy an Android if that's what they like.
I don't understand why you people can't just use the apps they trust and let me use the ones I trust.
I should not have to buy a different device to have the ability to put the software I want on it, and the hardware vendor shouldn't be able to get in my way.
Why did you buy the device in the first place if it doesn't do what you want? And why do you think you are entitled to force its satisfied users to your ways? Just sell it, make a different choice and let us be happy with what we got.
This assumes there is one and only one reason to buy an iOS device, and it's because the platform is locked down. But that's not true is it? Is that the one and only reason you like iOS?
No, but it's one of them, and imho a very important one. You recommended I don't use the apps - I recommend you don't use the device. It's not like it's not possible to live without iPhone in Europe.
The magnitude of our recommendations differ quite a lot. The phone is the most important thing in your life. Changing it is very expensive, both in money and in your own time.
Changing which app you use is, in most cases, a far less costly endeavor.
If you were upset that an injustice was occuring where you lived, would you want people to tell you to move to another country?
So why did these people buy the device in the first place? They knew what they were getting into. Why do they have to break it for the ones who actually wanted it?
I just want to know: What choice do you think I'm trying to force on you? This argument only works if you force this into an us-vs-them dichotomy, but I'm an Apple customer that owns multiple Apple products, so this thing where some outgroup is trying to piss on Apple's parade is a delusion. But even ignoring that, do you think I'm trying to force Apple to force you to install Firefox? Because I'm not, and I'd love to hear what it is you think anyone wants to force you personally to install.
How long until ‘this app only works on browser X’ on mobile that is only available via a third party store? Not impossible. We’ve been spared that so far but happens frequently on desktop Safari even today.
I have an iPad and there's plenty of stuff I literally can't do with Safari on it right now. However, it's not everyone else's fault. Yes, some websites are stupid and do UA checking and intentionally block people on some browsers, but none of those websites are the problem, as all of those sites are not going to give up a vast quantity of iPad users even after Chrome and Firefox become available. It's not like macOS because iOS is not a minority in the world of smartphones, and iPadOS is definitely not a minority in the world of tablets. It's not like Internet Explorer or Edge because it doesn't suck shit through a straw.
The websites that are actually a problem? The ones that don't care. The ones that really could not give a shit less if it runs on your stupid iPad or not. Those are the websites that you can't use on iPadOS. And while the top 500 most popular websites are never going to act this way, this mentality is more widespread than you think. They do not care, and will not care, that Apple doesn't let you run an alternative browser on your tablet. Therefore, you simply miss out.
In addition, some web apps will just not be able to have good support on Safari because Safari just generally takes longer on standards. So instead, you will just not see support for Apple mobile browsers at all. Again, you come upon it a lot. It's not out of malice for iOS users, its that Safari just isn't as good at keeping up with web standards as Firefox and Chrome are. And yes, a lot of web standards suck, but a lot of them also don't and are made to resolve real problems with the web app platform, and look, if Apple's argument that you don't need sideloading is "just make webapps", then I think it's only fair to say that it's not a very good option when they have such inferior support for the standards that people are making to make better and faster webapps.
Apple's influence on web standards has always felt petty. They're the only company that has the specific kind of influence that they do because users can't simply opt to use an alternate browser; they compete in a totally different way than almost every other browser. They should have to compete on a level playing field. I reckon that suddenly, WebMs will start playing on iOS and iPadOS.
Nobody "struggles" to see something that you literally made up. The original iPhone and iPad were literally global news and that happened before they ever did anything like this.
I am sure it made them a rich company, but they were going to be rich anyways. They also hoard money like fucking crazy, so it's not like it's all getting spent on R&D.
I think it is amusing that there is a contingent of Apple fans that actually believe the platform will get significantly worse because people are allowed to sideload and install browsers that have their own browser engines. I think this is a truly ridiculous line of argument. I don't like the other line of argument, which goes somewhere along the lines of "We should tolerate Microsoft-esque anti-competitive behavior because otherwise Google Chrome's anti-competitive behavior might win", but that is literally a better argument, to be fair.