31 points

Cmon Apple, people just want to do with their devices as they want. I just can’t believe I’m defending Epic.

permalink
report
reply
8 points

Epic is on the side that will result in a feature I actually want, so they have more support for once.

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points

Yeah, if epic wins I’ll be, can’t believe I’m saying this, getting an iPhone.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

Just be certain of that before supporting this. Be careful what you wish for because it seems like most people here don’t even understand what Epic is asking for and yet they are blindly supporting it simply because Apple is on the other side of this.

permalink
report
parent
reply
4 points

I want the ability to side load. I doubt epic would end up coming preloaded on iphones. I just want to see a f-droid type Foss app repository on iOS.

permalink
report
parent
reply
4 points

If sideloading were legal, it would definitely solve the issue. Apple’s main objective is to maintain the security of its devices and the App Store. However, the company’s strict policies can be a hindrance to some users who want more control over their devices. Allowing sideloading would permit advanced users to install any applications they want, but it would also increase the risk of security breaches.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point
*

If sideloading were legal, it would definitely solve the issue

It wouldn’t solve anything. It would allow for one thing while simultaneously introducing a host of entirely different problems.

Also, sideloading is already legal and Apple allows it. It’s how things like AltStore exist.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

AltStore - 3 app limit (AltStore counts as an app), every app needs to be resigned once every week Requirement to bypass: $100/year (dev account)

permalink
report
parent
reply
27 points
*
Deleted by creator
permalink
report
reply
2 points

I don’t think that’s what they’re worried about. Apple has more money than any other company on the planet. They care about their brand perception and it’s obvious that this would hurt it in the same way that crappy, cheap parts would. Opening the iPhone up to other App Stores and payment systems would be a huge negative for that. In fact, one of the main reasons I like the iPhone and Apple’s ecosystem is that I don’t have to worry about vetting whether a purchase I’m making is secure or whether an app I’m downloading is potentially nefarious. I don’t want that. I just want it to work when I need it and to be able to find and pay for apps quickly and silently. Epic might be more trustworthy than some (I, personally, don’t trust them after their past behavior) but this isn’t just limited to Epic. It would mean that every app I download, potentially, would have their own launcher like on Steam and that situation fucking sucks despite how awesome Steam is.

permalink
report
parent
reply
8 points

Nothing about allowing third party app stores would require you to change your usage patterns. Apple could keep all their current rules for the App Store exactly the same, and then also allow sideloading. If you want the pure apple experience as you described, all you have to do is only use their App Store. Then those who want to sideload (and companies looking to avoid paying apple fees) can do so through their own channels. Opt-in makes it a win-win for everyone, well except Apple who is currently enjoying a monopoly and charging the fees to match.

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

I wish I could believe that. But the second other app stores are allowed, apps you use today are going to migrate off of AppStore completely to protect their margins.

There’s no consumer benefit from that. More money goes to developers instead of Apple. Big benefit! At least a single, high quality app store has some consumer benefit.

permalink
report
parent
reply
-4 points

They already allow side-loading (albeit, admittedly, via a cumbersome mechanism). That is not what Epic is asking for. You’re either ignorant of what changes Epic is demanding here or you’re being disingenuous in your argument.

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points

The vast majority would almost certainly remain on the app store, and practically nothing would change for those apps in terms of security or convenience. Android has allowed downloads from other app stores for years, and not once has it posed a significant issue. Epic isn’t trying to force apps off the app store. They are only trying to open up options for other developers to distribute and make money without having to give it all to the monopoly that is Apple. This would give users the option to also move outside of the walled garden, but at no point would anyone be forced to do anything.

permalink
report
parent
reply
0 points

You seemed to have left out when Fortnite was removed from the play Store and lots of fake scam apps popped up in their place. So yes things would most likely change.

Plus there are a handful of app developers would would love to leave the App Store. Basecamp and proton come to mind. So now you have at least 3 app stores to add.

permalink
report
parent
reply
-2 points

Android has allowed downloads from other app stores for years, and not once has it posed a significant issue

Lol. That’s not true. It constantly poses an issue and is one of the major sources for fraud on the platform.

Epic isn’t trying to force apps off the app store

I never said they were and it seems like you don’t get what they are trying to do. Currently, getting an app on the App Store entails clicking a “Get” button and responding to a prompt for confirmation/payment. It’s one prompt, every user can be 100% certain it’s secure, and it takes 2 seconds to confirm and validate your identity.

If Epic gets what it wants, every app could potentially have its own payment/confirmation prompt and every developer could have their own launcher and interface for even finding and downloading the apps. They have no way of verifying if the site they’re being forwarded to is secure, where their payment information is going, or whether the developer and payment site are even the same party which means their purchase data and other information is a vector to be compromised. On top of that, you have to enter separate payment and billing information for each launcher and every one has a separate email, data, and privacy policy which could allow them to do whatever they want with your data.

It is an objectively worse experience for 99% of people in every way.

permalink
report
parent
reply
-1 points

It works in reverse too. The developers don’t care about competition. They just want to profit from the platform without paying anything. You could say Apple’s claims about platform quality and consistency are weak, but the only thing on the other side of this is boosting developer profit margins.

permalink
report
parent
reply
9 points

Apple on Thursday argued the lower court orders violate the U.S. Constitution because they overstep the powers of a federal judge. Apple argued that the trial judge relied on a case brought by a single developer - rather than a broader class of developers - to justify a nationwide ban, without proving that the nationwide ban was needed to remedy the harm caused to Epic.

That’s a pretty flimsy ground to resist the ruling. But that’s expected when you are the Disney of the tech world.

permalink
report
reply
3 points
*

If only the lawyers and judges deciding this knew the joy of having the Epic launcher on their PC.

Lawyer: “Should anyone be allowed to create a computing platform free from Epic bloatware?”

Judge: “That wouldn’t be fair, would it?”

SMH

permalink
report
reply
-2 points

This should not be a government decision. If you don’t like the closed ecosystem, get a different brand of phone. Government should not force design decisions onto companies

permalink
report
reply
3 points

So our options should be to accept a company that prevents us from using 100% of OUR phones, or choosing the crappy competitor?

That’s a lose-lose scenario. Why would anyone defend it?

permalink
report
parent
reply
0 points

I’m all for it when there’s a monopoly. Microsoft has so much market share that them restricting access to the PCs would be anticompetitive.

Apple is closer to half. And they built the market share they do have with the closed ecosystem because that’s what people want. I don’t want apps to be able to require me to give them my credit card. Subscriptions through Apple are extremely user friendly (even if subscriptions inherently are shit). Cancelling is easy and not buried in dark patterns like every single company that handles their own subscriptions does. “You have to follow our interface guidelines to sell your product on our phone” has massively increased the quality of the apps on my phone. Android is an incoherent mess of bad design because you can do whatever you want, and the experience is worse for it. Whether they recognize it or not, most people are buying Apple because of the pattern of decisions they’ve made as the sole standard setter for products on their platforms.

permalink
report
parent
reply

Apple

!apple_enthusiast@lemmy.world

Create post
Welcome

to the largest Apple community on Lemmy. This is the place where we talk about everything Apple, from iOS to the exciting upcoming Apple Vision Pro. Feel free to join the discussion!

Rules:
  1. No NSFW Content
  2. No Hate Speech or Personal Attacks
  3. No Ads / Spamming
    Self promotion is only allowed in the pinned monthly thread

Lemmy Code of Conduct

Communities of Interest:

Apple Hardware
Apple TV
Apple Watch
iPad
iPhone
Mac
Vintage Apple

Apple Software
iOS
iPadOS
macOS
tvOS
watchOS
Shortcuts
Xcode

Community banner courtesy of u/Antsomnia.

Community stats

  • 1.2K

    Monthly active users

  • 1.1K

    Posts

  • 15K

    Comments