The point being that you can't have it both ways here.
You are the one who made the "just don't use it" argument, as applied to the iPhone.
If you can use that argument, then so can everyone else. We can equally say "Ok, just continue to only use the iPhone app store".
Its your argument. Either it applies or it doesn't.
If you want to say that your argument is bad, thats fine. But if you don't then the argument can be equally used against you.
I expect that you'll ignore this clear contradiction though and not address it like you just did in your comment, and if you do that I will take that as an agreement that your argument was bad and you just don't want to admit it, thus you avoid addressing the contradiction.
> You're missing the forest for the trees. Apple offers a curated environment largely through the curation of the app store. That curated environment is massively valuable to the average user. That's the asset Apple is trying to protect.
I've noticed this trend with a lot of my engineering / tech friends: really good at tech, but completely clueless in understanding the actual value to users that a tech thing provides. That's the distinction which makes this not-a-contradiction; but since you're probably mistaking the technology itself for the value it provides, that won't make sense.
> your original argument about "just go use an android" is equally wrong
Uh, no it's not? I'm sorry but you're not making sense. If users want more freedom, they can just use Android. Some users like the walled garden; they can choose Apple. If they want something else, Android is right there.
> Apple's market power and decisions
Is exactly how and why they managed to have a curated environment.
It seems like you have this idea in your head about what I mean, and I don't think it's accurate, and I don't think it's being updated. I'm not going to engage anymore; all you've done is attempt cheap shots, and miss.
> Is exactly how and why they managed to have a curated environment.
So in other words they have taken the users choice away using their market power! Glad you agree!
Either a user's choice is taken away in both situations, or it is neither situations.
> If users want more freedom, they can just use Android.
Actually they are unable to get the 30% discount from apps that only work on iPhone.
And now they will be! Now the user will be allowed to choose to get that 30% discount and Apple will not be able to take away a user's choice to buy the app on an alternative app store.
Did you read the comments I linked to? I put it pretty clearly there.
> Apple offers a curated environment largely through the curation of the app store. That curated environment is massively valuable to the average user. That's the asset Apple is trying to protect.
The user chooses to have an opinionated environment that protects them. If they don't want an opinionated environment, they can choose Android. The fact the environment is opinionated is what's valuable to the user, and what Apple is trying to protect.
Why? Giving the user the ability to install random apps from 3rd party stores opens up the protected ecosystem such that big players like facebook will absolutely take the opportunity to use 3rd party stores, and users will de facto have to use the 3rd party stores. Now the walls of the garden are torn down, and one of the huge values of the iPhone ecosystem has been destroyed.
Big win! Apple's been pulled down to the level of everyone else.
quick question, is facebook on the google play store? can you name 3 major apps that are apk install only? theres still way more friction to installing them than to just going and downloading them from the play store, so most apps are better off still maintaining a presence on the app store while possibly pushing and nudging people who want to install an apk to do so. the fact that the option is there doesnt mean you HAVE to use it, just like the fact that android exists doesnt mean you HAVE to buy it
The Google play store has no similar anti-tracking rules. Why? Well, partly because those rules would negatively impact Google, but also because Meta could credibly decide to move their apps off the play store and onto their own "Meta Store: The only place to get Facebook, Instagram, Threads, and WhatsApp".
If it was easy for Meta to set up their own store for iOS, they absolutely would because currently Apple kneecaps their ability to track and sell user data in ways that costs Meta REAL money.
Google does not exert the same kind of control over the play store, so Meta is quite happy to keep Facebook there.
So, as things stand (with a closed iOS ecosystem) I can use an Instagram app on my phone that's subject to a bunch of pro-consumer rules about tracking and data protection. If iOS allowed third party stores then I would almost certainly not be able to do that any more.
that's not an app store feature, that's an iOS feature. i agree, it's fantastic, it doesnt require apps be distributed via the app store to work, however, its a part of iOS having well designed permissions controls
No, that misunderstands things. The technical iOS features are a relatively small part of it (Yes, there's a user dialog you have to pop up to get an IDFA, that's great!). But apps COULD pretty trivially work around that. There are a million and one ways to fingerprint a user that don't rely on an IDFA and it's impossible to restrict that kind of activity through OS-level features alone (see: https://amiunique.org/ ).
So why don't apps just work around it? Because they have to agree to terms with Apple and SAY that they won't. And then Apple has the power to kick them off the store if they do it anyway.
In addition to that, they have to list what data they collect and what they do with it when they get it. Basically they have to make a bunch of pinky-promises. Some of those pinky-promises Apple just shows to the user as a list of "here's how this company is going to use your data". Other things are just forbidden outright.
Whether a company can collect and sell certain kinds of my data to a third party is not something that can ever be controlled through an OS level feature.
You are the one who made the "just don't use it" argument, as applied to the iPhone.
If you can use that argument, then so can everyone else. We can equally say "Ok, just continue to only use the iPhone app store".
Its your argument. Either it applies or it doesn't.
If you want to say that your argument is bad, thats fine. But if you don't then the argument can be equally used against you.
I expect that you'll ignore this clear contradiction though and not address it like you just did in your comment, and if you do that I will take that as an agreement that your argument was bad and you just don't want to admit it, thus you avoid addressing the contradiction.