this post was submitted on 16 May 2025
411 points (96.8% liked)
Technology
70259 readers
3299 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Epic isn't wrong about Apples payment requirements being BS, but Epic also isn't exactly a hero here.
Will be interesting to see how this pissing match plays out over time.
Should you be able to use other payment providers outside of apple pay YES!
Should you be able to install other APP stores on an iPhone? Not sure.
Why shouldn't you be able to install whatever you want? Maybe I'm missing something..
You are missing the gene that makes one an apple fanBoi apparently.
I am in the camp that there is a benefit to the managed store. Since moving family members to iOS devices the number of times they have loaded malware or asked me for help installing ANYTHING dropped to zero.
Should techies be able to side load if they want? Sure, should that be a primary install method? No.
All bootloaders should be able to be unlocked and able to install the OS of your choice. Also you should be able to choose whatever app store you want. It is your hardware, you payed for it.
ICE has been notified, nice try, domestic terrorist
Good thing i'm Canadian then, lol.
If you want a customizable phone, yes. If you want a secured phone, no.
There are already existing products for both sides. No point in forcing them to do something else at this point.
Except Google is trying to limit this on Android phones as well (e.g. with SafetyNet).
If manufacturers had their way, there wouldn't be any phones for one side.
There's nothing stopping manufacturers from permanently locking the bootloader. Some do and others don't suggesting that the industry does not have a universal preference.
I do think Google wants it to be inconvenient enough to run a version of Android they haven't blessed as one's main phone that it has no chance to become mainstream, but that's about the prospect of an OEM not bundling Google's apps and store, not hobbyists running custom builds. If that sounds like an attempt to use market power to exclude competitors in violation of fair trading laws in a multitude of jurisdictions, you might be on to something.
Some manufacturers have stopped allowing unlocking their bootloaders, some bootloaders have been hacked by the community. It's not like this is a static system.
No, Google is also trying to stop hobbyists running custom builds from accessing services built on their software (the aforementioned SafetyNet). Hackers keep finding ways around this, but Google keeps trying to lock them out.
That's a side effect. If Google really wanted to interfere with hobbyists, they would mandate hardware-based attestation and all the current workarounds would be broken. It would be much harder to create workarounds for that.
And also all current phones would be broken, which they can't do.
It appears phones as old as the Android 8 era can support this and phones that shipped with Android 13 or newer always do. I had the impression it had been universal a little longer.
I mean that's something that'd happen regardless of whether you may install other App Stores on an iPhone easily, no?
GP wrote:
App stores are just one part of the puzzle. Unless consumers actually have rights, manufacturers will keep trying to limit their options.
The reason I don't use Android phones in China is because every company uses its own, separate version of what's basically microG (notifications, location...) and update checking, and so my RAM is gone before I know it and everything's super laggy. And on my grandma's Android tablet these desktop-style notifications pop up overwhelmingly because of certain apps that bundle adware. This is what happens when sanctions took away a default option. Customization is no doubt something great for hobbyists and an option that should exist but there is a benefit to having a default monopoly (though, again, there should be an opt-out).
Sure, but Google is trying to take away that opt-out! So we'll be left with a monopoly and nothing else. That's strictly worse than not having a default monopoly.
I agree with you, but my point from the start here (which I should've said more clearly) was that this doesn't mean Apple must open up in response (and by default), which would leave us with no good centralized, minimalistic option either.
But you don't have Google available as an option due to sanctions, right? It doesn't have anything to do with other options being available. The same would go for Apple - they could be cut away with sanctions, and having other options wouldn't preclude the default option from existing.
I don't get what you mean.
How do other app stores on Android lead to Google stuff not being available? There's no connection, the reason is sanctions.
How would other app stores on iOS lead to Apple stuff not being available?
I'm not saying having other app stores on Android nor iOS lead/will lead to them being unavailable. I'm saying there needs to be an option with a single app store and set of services. Having multiple app stores on Apple and very easily installable would cause similar issues with RAM and usability for the less initiated, and everyone was uninitiated once.
Other app stores on Android don't necessarily lead to issues with RAM and usability. They don't have to re-implement the Google framework stuff.
The same would go for Apple, and people will simply have options. Sure, they'll have to learn about them, but they have to learn about many things in life! And it's not like Apple will suddenly allow others to re-implement their SDK.
But there's no reason to discuss hypotheticals here, as this is currently playing out in the EU. We should be seeing the issues you mention, but we don't.
Most of these apps don't in China either. But you do need to reimplement an update-checker. And that's enough to hog the RAM. And with the RAM already hogged, the window shattered, little optimization of the update-checker is done.
They won't learn about it if it becomes the norm to have RAM hogged.
No, you have to go through complicated bureaucracy and fees to become an independent app store for iOS. Anyone who goes through this is probably competent enough to optimize their update-checker.
I have three app stores installed on my Android, yet none hog my RAM. This is a non-issue (especially since an update checker doesn't run all the time, only on infrequent intervals which are triggered by the OS itself).
You are initiated enough to consciously avoid junk apps.
Apple's software is malware
How so?
Nope. No reason that you should pay $1000 for a device and not, at the very least, be able to install compatible software from other sources.
We wouldn't accept this from Microsoft. Could you imagine if this was the norm for DOS or Windows?
Should side loading be discouraged and warned about? Yes. Should it be impossible? Maybe through "parental" controls or MDM, but absolutely not out-of-the-box.
This is a sane take, though I personally do generally tend towards understanding and even valuing the walled garden to some degree. But this is what I’ve always felt underneath it, you found the words.
A walled garden without an exit is just a pretty prison.
What's more, Windows S Mode proved perfectly that you could offer the "safe" functionality that Apple claim they need to protect their customers, without fucking things up for people who wanted to take responsibility for vetting applications themselves.
"I frequently interface with idiots, so I don't feel it would be safe for you to have full control over the hardware you own."
Monopolies and trusts are never beneficial to anyone save those who control them.
There is a benefit. And you can continue using the first-party store if you want. There's no benefit to not being able to use 3rd-party ones to anyone but Apple and their investors.
There's a lot of very techy people who've never had to do family tech support on this platform.
Yes, the fact that Mum can't accidentally install a shitty browser toolbar is a feature.
I can see benefits of such limitations for say a company-owned devices with cyber-security in mind. When we talk about open market of devices in an increasingly "digital" world I am against limitations with profit in mind. It's like many things in life. When you want to do or use something you have to learn to use it, often by getting burned or otherwise making a mistake. You having to fix family devices has nothing to do with it. Anyway I have no stake in this, I would never buy an Apple device. Companies pushing for "infinite growth" with such policies will be left in the dust imo, but the billionares will just move on after milking everything dry.