If you have two choices and one is barely better than the other, you think people shouldn't be allowed to acknowledge the negative aspects of the thing they chose?
Overruling the world's premier phone-maker on questions of how to design a phone is not improving society. I'm giving Apple money specifically because they designed the phone. I don't want the EU trying to figure it out; they have a reverse-midas touch. Things touch ends up slumping. It is a very salient point that the reason they are issuing orders to a US company is because they "helped" all the EU companies make decisions until they were effectively forced out of the market with failed tech policies.
If you want a phone built by someone who doesn't know how to design a phone, I'm sure there are already lots of tiny and irrelevant players already in the EU that you can patronise. The phone probably won't be particularly good though, evidenced by the fact that most people with a choice prefer to let Apple make all the decisions. Or various Asian groups who have a knack for tech.
Overruling one of the worlds richest companies that produce one of the phoneOS duopoly, can absolutely benefit society.
In this instance, you can still give Apple your money - NOT sideload anything - and live life exactly as before. People - lots of people - just want an option.
I love what the EU has done for standardising charging bullshittery. I hope it can make an impact here.
Not so; I'd pay more to have my family using phones without the option. They don't know what they are doing. I don't want them to have options and neither do they.
Any option will be social engineered into enabling.
> Why can't we all just have what we want?
We have it. I compiled and installed an open source app on my iphone. There is a barrier which is just perfect because it means no matter how hard they try no one can manage to get my mom to install some shady app that abuses private apis and such in order to hack her unless they first get this app on app store
Making it an option would threaten safety and life savings of millions of people who don't give a flying duck about your or my undying love for full hardware ownership but will instantly become targets for mass hacking campaigns ("just press this button and OK 3 times to the red warning")
"if you really care about it, you can do it" is a fair state of affairs. If you are dead set on it just mentally map in your head the price of a 1000$ device to 1100$ and be done with it. If you care about these things and insist on using this brand then you can afford it
(I am a bit exaggerating the point but just because it seems like almost everyone is on the other side of the argument)
Hurr durr as if they can't allow you to attach your own Apple account to your grandparent's phone and put it into a supervised mode where you need to authorise for your grandparent to change settings like that.
Well most people don't have someone to do that for them... And even if I could do that for a relative I would rather they just had a walled garden device because I don't enjoy doing unpaid tech support
You say that any option will be social engineered, and then you go on to explain an option that Apple has already implemented that you don't believe is susceptible to social engineering.
Grandma could theoretically install AltStore, and then proceed to install malicious apps from unknown sources, right now, if she really wanted to. But she won't, because it's too complicated.
I'm not asking for an easy way to sideload. I wouldn't mind if it was made even more difficult than it is now, in fact. All I want is an officially-supported option to do so that isn't prohibitively expensive. An example I provided on the website is Google's ChromeOS. They make it difficult enough to enable developer mode that it's practically invulnerable to social engineering attacks. It's much more difficult to enable sideloading on a Chromebook than it is on an iOS device.
> If you are dead set on it just mentally map in your head the price of a 1000$ device to 1100$ and be done with it
No, it's $100/yr, every year into the foreseeable future, and the cost could change at any time without prior notice. If you stop paying, your apps will stop working, so if you've grown attached to and have become dependent upon your sideloaded apps, it's quite unlikely you'll stop paying.
The Apple Developer Program is not intended as an option to enable sideloading on your device, and it never was. Apple only wants you signing up if you plan on submitting apps to the App Store, which is a benefit you're completely missing out on if you use it exclusively for sideloading.
> "if you really care about it, you can do it" is a fair state of affairs
I would 100% agree, if that were an accurate description of reality, but unfortunately it's not. If you can't afford $100/yr, then no, you cannot do it. It doesn't matter how much technical knowledge you have; you simply cannot do it.
> (I am a bit exaggerating the point but just because it seems like almost everyone is on the other side of the argument)
You and I must not be reading the same website? There is a very large anti-sideloading presence here on Hacker News. Most of it is based on strawman arguments and flawed assumptions, but it's there, and surfaces on almost every thread discussing the topic.
> You say that any option will be social engineered, and then you go on to explain an option that Apple has already implemented that you don't believe is susceptible to social engineering.
An option like "a toggle in settings" like the other guy suggested will be social engineered. But option like "a possibility" available with hoops to software engineers or tech savvy people can't be.
> Grandma could theoretically install AltStore,
Only in EU I guess? Hopefully it stays there
> No, it's $100/yr, every year into the foreseeable future
OK. Add couple more hundred bucks. Doesn't change the point.
> and the cost could change at any time without prior notice
Well it all comes back to "we are at the mercy of the maker of the product we buy". From my vantage point allowing easy sideloading and alt stores are changes I don't want
> There is a very large anti-sideloading presence here on Hacker News
Maybe we read different sites...
Basically everybody is for sideloading and alt stores
1) big corporations who want to run their own stores and not pay Apple a cut for creating and maintaining the hardware and ecosystem
2) techie freedom maximalists
3) regular people who want to pirate apps and not pay small-time developers and don't realize security implications
Except for the second group I very much disagree with all of them and as I said the second group can already do it with some hoops
> But option like "a possibility" available with hoops to software engineers or tech savvy people can't be.
Okay, then the only disagreement we seem to have is that you think that everyone who sideloads should continue to give a yearly donation of $100 to Apple (which they don't need or want) for the rest of their lives?
That is a very strange perspective. Keep in mind that I would fully understand if you don't think Apple should be forced by governments to provide sideloading for free; that's a separate issue, and I don't explicitly advocate for it on my website. The EU legislation has already passed; I'm just explaining what it means for tech enthusiasts.
> Only in EU I guess?
I'm referring to the "classic" version of AltStore. The EU version only allows you to install Apple-approved apps and as such doesn't present any additional risk for malware. The classic version is available worldwide and it makes use of signing certificates from Xcode.
> OK. Add couple more hundred bucks. Doesn't change the point.
It absolutely does change the point. You claimed that anyone with the required technical skills can sideload, but that isn't true; they need to be able to afford and justify spending an additional $8.33 every month to access a feature which is free on every other mainstream computing device.
> From my vantage point allowing easy sideloading and alt stores are changes I don't want
I don't want that either, as I already said.
> 1) big corporations who want to run their own stores and not pay Apple a cut for creating and maintaining the hardware and ecosystem
I don't have any sympathy for Epic Games either.
> 3) regular people who want to pirate apps and not pay small-time developers and don't realize security implications
Sideloading doesn't inherently provide the ability to pirate apps. All iOS apps are encrypted and the binaries can't be accessed by other apps; the only way to obtain them is through jailbreaking, and that's something which probably won't exist forever. There's also of course unbreakable cryptographic measures such as remote attestation that Apple could employ if the problem grows into something too bad.
Okay, this view seems perhaps more nuanced than what I expect from a typical argument. Food for thought I guess. I don't fully get how sideloading won't enable piracy and ruin solo devs but I'll look into it.
> I don't have any sympathy for Epic Games either
Maybe it was astroturfing but when this was on the news HN discussion was basically back to back people supporting Epic, one reason I feel like it's lopsided here...
If your family is naive enough to be duped into ignoring several big scary warnings, then they are vulnerable enough to be duped into something worse. The problem here is not the magical walled garden tech but you not educating your family sufficiently.
If they are changing the decisions that Apple makes? Probably. iPhones are a luxury item; Apple is not skimping and doesn't want to accidentally assassinate their customers. Reliability and safety are selling points to them. We're not talking about explosive Lebanese pagers here.
My expectation would be that Apple could quite easily design the phone independently of the safety regulations, then do a review and determine that they have effortlessly complied with them. Otherwise it is more likely to be a defect in the regulation than with Apple.
So your opinion is that it would be better for the world if Apple was not subjected to anything that causes them to do anything different than what they would naturally do? If a country passes a law to limit conflict minerals, and it impacts Apple, we'd all be better off if Apple was just allowed to keep using conflict minerals? Apple knows how to design phones, and if they think they need to use conflict minerals, we should just trust them.
I just don't think this logic works. It's basically advocating for self-regulation, and that's historically not worked that well.
> ...we'd all be better off if Apple was just allowed to keep using conflict minerals...
It makes me laugh because back in the day people would have been complaining about Apple assembling their phones in Chinese sweatshops. But in the intervening time it turned out that working hard generates lots of wealth and now the conversation is how to sabotage the Chinese to stop them getting too wealthy, technically advanced and powerful. Those sweatshops meant business.
But to your actual point, you feel a need to compare sideloading apps to promoting war and conflict on an international sale you might want to reset your sense of proportion. If the EU wants to focus on promoting global peace I would strongly advise that they go do that rather than trying to backseat design iPhones. There is a major land war in Europe right now that involves pretty much every nuclear power except Pakistan they might like to turn their attention to. Some might say it involves resource rights too.
> It's basically advocating for self-regulation, and that's historically not worked that well.
The EUs regulators aren't so crash-hot either historically speaking. They've managed a grand transition from unchallenged global power to a 3rd tier continent over the last hundred years. They're doing something wrong. Telling Apple how to manage a phone is the least of their problems, but neatly emblematic of their strategy of having people who don't know how to make things work overulling the people who do.
If your argument is basically "the EU has more important things to do than tell Apple what they can and can't do", I'm sorry, but that's a losing argument.
There is nearly always something more important to do, no matter what you are doing. That doesn't mean that what you're doing is a waste of time.
In this case what they are doing is beyond a mere waste of time, these bureaucrats are trying to make phones worse after more than a decade of real-world feedback telling them that what they do makes phones worse. While claiming enthusiastically that they're trying to help I expect.
> My expectation would be that Apple could quite easily design the phone independently of the safety regulations, then do a review and determine that they have effortlessly complied with them. Otherwise it is more likely to be a defect in the regulation than with Apple.
This statement is a bit much. I don't think we can really have a productive discussion about this with you, because it seems like you've put Apple on such a high pedestal that you won't accept any criticism of them.
The idea that if a company -- at least one you hold in high regard -- would naturally design a product that would violate some regulation, then that regulation must be wrong... wow, that's an incredible statement to make.
> you've put Apple on such a high pedestal that you won't accept any criticism of them.
Apple's market share is like 20%, 30% globally. There is clearly a lot to criticise; most people don't use iPhones. If you want to compare an Apple phone and a Huawei phone then Huawei has them beat on a number of things. One of them can probably makes a phone detectably safer than the other too.
The issue is the criticism being used to justify going from decisions being made in Apple (capable of getting double digit percentages of the world that they make the best smartphone) to the EU (incapable of convincing anyone they know how to make a smartphone & a track record of driving business out of Europe).
What if we let people who don't have a proven track record of gross incompetence make the decisions? I think that is a good starting point. Giving design decisions to the only group of people to have destroyed and bungled their own smartphone industry is a bad idea.
Exactly. These are the people that champion "small government" thinking it hurts regulation, not realizing that without regulation companies screw over consumers as much as they possibly can.
In a similar vein, I dislike forcing of the USB-C port. I think we are going to approach a wall (especially concerning foldables) where the thickness of the port is a limiting factor and it should be up to the user to decide if its worth going thinner with a proprietary port.
If customers choose to go with USB-C, a thicker phone, larger battery etc, that is all and well, I feel that will happen anyways. But it should be up to the customer & manufacturer, not the government.
Yeah, no. In this specific topic, we've had plenty of time to establish that it is isn't the case. Power is not balanced between individuals and manufacturers.
USB is a horrible mess but for the first time in my life, I can travel with one charger that works with all the devices I take with me. I could even travel without a charger and be pretty sure I will be able to find one at the destination.
People around me seem as happy as me about this and it wasn't the case as long as manufacturers were not forced to use USB. Nobody complains about the port form factor. That's simply not a concern.
Yep. Whenever I travel, I bring a single 60W USB-C charger that charges my laptop, my phone, and even other random gadgets I might need to bring with me.
I have an older micro-USB Kindle that annoys me. Of course, for most trips I never need to charge it, as long as I charge it before I leave, so for all practical purposes it's fine.
My wife just bought an iPhone 16 to replace her iPhone XR, and if it weren't for her AirPods from a few years ago, she'd be able to avoid carrying around that extra lightning cable too.
This might feel like a minor, first-world problem, but it is annoying. And when you scale it up, there's so much waste with so many people needing two cables, one of which could have never been manufactured, had we all been using the same ports all along.
> Overruling the world's premier phone-maker on questions of how to design a phone is not improving society.
I think it is! Certainly not on the level of eliminating feudalism, but it's an improvement.
You're also misusing the term "design" here. Apple's resistance to allowing sideloading has nothing to do with design. It's a business decision that helps them extract more revenue from their product.
And that's the real point: governments are free to restrict and dictate how companies do business. That's just how the world works.
> I'm giving Apple money specifically because they designed the phone.
And many people give Apple money somewhat grudgingly, because they know Apple offers a great experience, even though there are some things they don't like about it, and there's no reason -- aside from Apple's business model -- why those issues can't be fixed.
> If you have two choices and one is barely better than the other
I don't think "barely better" accurately represents the situation, since the other choice here literally allows sideloading. It's not barely better, it is better if you want to sideload apps. To paraphrase your meme, society has already been improved somewhat.
The problem is you have to make a trade off, and for no reason. You might like iPhones in quite a few ways better than you like Android phones, but also really want to sideload.
So what do you do? Well, you have to compromise. And not for a real technical reason. You have to compromise because Apple's business model depends on being able to extract more money from customers and developers by being a gatekeeper.
Whenever a company's business model prevents me from doing something I want with a product they might sell me, I think twice about buying that product.
Sounds like a "we should improve society somewhat" moment. https://i.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/001/259/257/342...
If you have two choices and one is barely better than the other, you think people shouldn't be allowed to acknowledge the negative aspects of the thing they chose?