Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Proposed Law Against Apple's 'Walled Garden' Software Approach Sparks Fears of iPhone Ban in Italy
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
King Annoy. There are more open choices like android, windows or linux. The tradeoff for Apple's elegance and security is a more closed-garden approach and King Annoy can come up with its own OS and tech company if it wants to compete.
Last edited:
What happened with HandBrake was a lot worse: here. Similar thing happened with Transmission. Apple's reviewing process isn't perfect, but it's an added layer of protection, and having everyone download from the App Store massively reduces the risk of users being infected via compromised mirrors or fake sites.
What you linked about Xcode would have affected developers regardless of whether they distributed through the App Store or elsewhere. And the only reason those people got the fake Xcode was they downloaded it from outside of Apple. So this is a perfect example.
I'd be fired in an instant if I downloaded Xcode from a random site.
Born in 1996. I'm 21. Probably considered a "kid" by older people but not a "child," but I guess that's up to you.
Last edited:
Agreed. I've owned iphones and android phones over the years. Guess what? If you don't like Apple's approach, get an Android phone or vice versa. Problem solved.
The problem is that soon as you can only obtain apps from the app store, you are subject to the whims of what Apple might or might not let you run your device.
Case in point: Emulators. Emulators are a ton of fun, but iOS users are mostly left out because Apple has a blanket ban on them in the app store.
Apple's policies on what's allowed have been *relatively* lax; the walled garden hasn't been a big problem in practice. But they can change their rules any time.
Allowing sideloading simply leaves it up to the user what to install and what risks to take. It isn't anything but a good thing.
The walled garden definitely has its drawbacks for users, won't deny that. And Apple's app approval process need to be under scrutiny so they don't abuse it for anticompetitive purposes. I've sideloaded emulators myself at my own risk. I think that's cool as long as the average user isn't doing it.
I don't see it as conspirational anything so thats plain false. Your incompetent jailbreaking episode analagy has nothing to do with it either. It has nothing to do with jailbreaking or forcing anyone to do anything.
You can see it however you like but according to the definition of a nanny state restricting personal use fits apple's position (although not a government) over those that want to expand personal choice. My post also does not state how I see things, just how it is. I take neither side.
nan·ny state
noun
- the government regarded as overprotective or as interfering unduly with personal choice.
By all means nobody should discuss it on a mac forum.
Some people say if you don't like the way the country is run then leave. Don't try to change anything. You sound just like that, how open minded of you. Guess what, if they allowed it then you would not be forced to do it. Problem solved. Everyone gets what they want. If it happened you could get a flip phone, even less personal choice. You would be VERY happy. Seriously, people that want this are free to push for it without leaving apple even without your permission.
[doublepost=1498428471][/doublepost]
Kind of like there are other countries out there, if you do not like Trump's/Merkel's etc. approach then move to another or start your own. Don't try to change anything. Gotcha. Really open minded, actually a regressive, redneck attitude.
[doublepost=1498429520][/doublepost]
Nothing apple does is set in stone, anything can change. When Cook ever leaves even more can change.
Its a win for both sides allowing sideloading as nobody would be forced to do it. Some are just too closed minded and selfish to like the idea of someone else doing something they don't want to. The "me" generation.
Last edited:
Legislation is there to protect the consumer. In my case I would like to have the freedom to install apps from the source I want.So you want to use iOS due to personal preference and also want to force Apple to make it how you want. How about Apple's choices? It's their product that they put R&D into and you're willingly buying. And there's no monopoly involved, so you have the entire free market as your choice, whereas Apple in this case can only deal with one Italian government (unless the Godfather gets involved).
What do you mean it doesn't come at the expense of security? Devs will switch from the iOS App Store, and everyone will be forced to download software from elsewhere. That's how it is on Mac, and it sucks. You saw what happened with HandBrake. You're completely ignoring how this could change the ecosystem and calling me a child in response.
[doublepost=1498417599][/doublepost]
Exactly! They're like Nintendo. You buy the hardware, and everything goes with it. Lots of companies do this, and consumers like it.
Apple in this case is abusing its power.
I personally believe it will happen.
It also filteres everything the user might want, but apple doesn't.
I'm all for it. Doesn't mean I'd use it on every device, though.
Yup Apple does have a polarizing following. I used to love waiting for the next thing that Apple put out. Now I see thing from a different perspective.
The coworkers will bitch when you have to lick down the device or complain that your limited staffing resources can’t turn around devices fast enough because of the issues they have caused
Apple doesn't have power to abuse. They have 12% market share in Italy, around 10% globally. Nothing is forcing consumers to use iOS.
No one is forcing me to use any one power company yet it is regulated and none of those have high market share.
History has shown us that companies abuse their power all the time given the chance.
Power companies typically have monopolies in the areas they serve. So, like, 100% market share. That's why they're regulated. Apple doesn't have a monopoly. If anything, some Android manufacturers have monopolies in areas where there's no compatible cell service for iPhones.
I was actually meaning the power companies as in the ones selling the power, not generating it.
One cannot advocate that to get what you want you abandon the brand. There is no feedback to the company as to what caused the abandonment. Much better to whinge on here
, at least then Apple can hear.If I abandoned every phone make because I didn't like one thing, I wouldn't have any companies to sell me a phone. So to all those saying if you don't like one thing then leave, it's a bit silly...
It's not market share but usage share which matters.
With software like adobe, it so happens that a significant number of their users are on windows computers as well as Macs, which is why they support both.
Simply having a ton of (low-specced) hardware out on the wild is no guarantee that people will buy your apps.
And your point is?
Elaborate.
You say that like it's supposed to mean something.
Sounds like you are better off switching to Android.
More like I recognise and acknowledge cause and effect.
A safety precaution which can be bypassed just by flicking off a switch is as good as having no precaution at all.
And I have made my choice. I have chosen to embrace the Apple ecosystem in its entirety, which also means accepting its flaws and idiosyncrasies in exchange for the value that the platform brings.
Quick survey of my /Applications folder:
- 226 items. Possibly a few of them don't run anymore in Sierra, and a few are old versions of the same app
- purchased from App store: 17, including three version of macOS. Of those, I regularly use only 5: SonicWall Mobile Connect (VPN), Display Menu, Blackmagic Disk Speed Test, Xcode, and Microsoft Remote Desktop.
I don't need the App Store at all!
My choice of phone is not a political statement.
A better analogy would be if you don't like the food a particular restaurant is serving, you go patronise another restaurant that does serve the food you want. And if none of them have food that is to your exact liking, then maybe you either cook your own food or learn to compromise and go with whichever best suits your tastes, even if it is not exactly 100%. You don't march to the kitchen, hand the chef a recipe and insist that your order be done to your exact tastes and preferences unless you somehow own the restaurant.
Did you just call yourself closed-minded and selfish? I guess we agree on something.
I like to think an alternative analogy where your favourite XYZ is changing, maybe a pub that has changed its beer recipe or is no longer supplying your favourite tipple. What does someone do, move to the next put in the town over and all the hassle that involves or canvas the owner to make changes.
Except that in this case, Apple hasn't changed. The app store largely continues to operate by the same rules as when it first debuted. I guess to ride on your pub analogy, maybe as you grow up, you start to demand more from the pub because your tastes have evolved and changed as well. You want a different brand of beer which the pub doesn't serve. You feel the decor could use a change. You think the owner should bring in some slot machines because that's what you want to play, even if he has a strict anti-gambling stance.
I think it's one thing to propose changes you would like to see, and it's another to act like you are somehow entitled to them.
All valid view points. Point to note though, it's a constant battle between Apple and developers. Apple makes the rules and they change over time. There are things the developers of apps I use want to add but can't because they are hamstrung by Apple, hence me wanting Apple to allow apps from anywhere I choose. It has nothing to do with entitlement. Nor do I act as if I am entitled.
App loading from anywhere is coming. Why the objection if it doesn't affect you?
There are always consequences and ramifications, be it directly or indirectly.
I could give you a few scenarios.
1) A developer for an app I have been using for a long time removes his app from the app store and only makes it available through a third party store. This means he is free to use what APIs he wants, even if they are dodgy or suspicious. Once they are out of the app store, they are also beyond Apple's jurisdiction. At least with the iOS app store, they have to play by Apple's rules, which keeps them honest. I know where I stand as a consumer.
2) Piracy. What's stopping someone from blatantly copying another developer's apps, and offering them elsewhere for cheaper or even free? It may not affect me directly, but it can impact the developer financially and affect his ability to continue making and supporting the apps which I use.
And guess what? These are legitimate issues plaguing the Android app store. Why do you think the iOS app store is home to great apps? And why many developers choose to develop for iOS first or exclusively? Because the app store is locked down, consumers have to get their apps from there. This means that developers are able to charge a reasonable price knowing that we have to either pay for it or do without, and that we can't readily sideload a pirated copy from elsewhere. That profit is what incentivises them to keep creating great apps for iOS. It's also faster for me because I don't have to bother comparing prices across various app stores, and I know the apps have been vetted.
Why would Apple take what has worked well for the app store and its stakeholders, and throw that all away to emulate what Android is going with their Play Store, which clearly hasn't worked as well, and is plagued with problems of its own?
There seems to be a lot of people who buy iPhones, then want them to be just like Android phones.