• cum
    link
    fedilink
    English
    811 year ago

    I have no idea why so many of those commenters are anti consumer rights. Android proves that it’s not a security issue. Why are they so brain broken that they are actively against opening up their walled garden, like it compromise their apple product purchases in some way.

    • @evlogii@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      -27
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      I’m an anti-Apple advocate and an Android user. And I’m against this law. What good does it bring? These are Apple’s devices; let them do whatever they want with them. Don’t like how Apple does business? Buy another brand. Advocate against Apple. Suggest alternatives. But do not force them to do things how you like. It’s just toxic. I believe that the most anti-consumer thing is when governments try to decide what customers want or need. I hate it when they take me for an idiot (I might often be, but let me make my mistakes and learn from them).

      • cum
        link
        fedilink
        English
        111 year ago

        This logic makes literally zero sense

      • @Skates@feddit.nl
        link
        fedilink
        English
        91 year ago

        These are Apple’s devices

        But that’s the thing - they aren’t. Not once they’re bought. At that point, they’re my device, or your device.

        Surely you can see how having a single supplier can be a bad thing, right? That supplier has no incentive to deliver quality. Why would they?

        If you want to start baking cookies and sell them, you need to beat several bakers in your town and several companies in the rest of the country if you ever want to be successful and profitable. This is because there are already several well-established suppliers who have proven they make great cookies - why would anyone buy from you?

        On the other hand if you’re the only one selling - you can reduce cocoa content in half to save costs, you can replace quality ingredients with cheaper versions for the same reason, you can increase prices as much as you want - the cookie-seeking customer will still buy, because there are no other options.

        Sure, you can also be the best baker in the world. You can put love and care into every cookie that leaves your shop. You can care about customers and make sure they get the best stuff, because you have a monopoly and you can enforce that view.

        But in reality, what actually happens is that those decisions don’t belong to you. They belong to the soulless company that only has one purpose: maximize profits. And you can be the best person ever, but if you’re working for a publicly traded company you’re at the mercy of shareholders.

        Why would you want this? Forget about apple, why would you want this in any field?

      • @groupofcrows@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        91 year ago

        Bill Gates would love you. Microsoft used its position to kill of Netscape. Could you imagine how rich they would be if they could strong arm everyone into only using their products?

        • @Skates@feddit.nl
          link
          fedilink
          English
          3
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          To be honest, if Microsoft didn’t give a shit about anti-trust laws and if they just let Apple die instead of investing in them, we wouldn’t have Apple today. Which - to be clear: would be a great thing.

          Maybe we should actually all strive to be more monopoly-oriented, the laws be damned.

      • @CucumberFetish@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        11 year ago

        In this case, the government isn’t forcing the customer to do anything at all. If you don’t care about it, then absolutely nothing will change for you. The only thing it does is provide more options for people who want more options.

    • @milicent_bystandr@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      -291 year ago

      I definitely like my computers (including my phone) being open to me, and I love having f-droid on Android.

      Even so, I think there’s a genuine case for security of a walled garden, even though I prefer the alternative.

      Having the option to install 3rd party is another attack surface, and gives a chance for the market - or authoritarian control - to to veer towards not being vetted by that walled garden.

      I.e. if a popular enough developer chooses not to publish through the app store, you either accept their personal guarantees or refuse to use that software. If your job or school decides not to… then what can you do, even if your school is not competent to keep up to date the security of their lowest-bidder bespoke app store?

      But if you can’t side-load, there is no option, which makes them use Apple’s one with its protection.

      I agree, that hasn’t turned out that way on Android… except for phones that don’t support Google Play. I hope it never does…

      • Dark Arc
        link
        fedilink
        English
        41 year ago

        Having the option to install 3rd party is another attack surface, and gives a chance for the market - or authoritarian control - to to veer towards not being vetted by that walled garden.

        Authoritarians are always going to be prefer authoritarian app stores where any app that threatens them can be swifty removed.

        Authoritarians rule in part via suppression of information. All governments can mandate that specific things be or not be installed on devices, it’s typically only authoritarians that are afraid of unknown things being installed on devices.

    • @histic@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      -451 year ago

      except it is a security issue for those not tech savvy I had to enable parental controls on some family members phones cause they enabled side loading somehow and managed to royally fuck up their phone

      • cum
        link
        fedilink
        English
        171 year ago

        Not really, it’s not much of an issue on Android. iOS will probably do the same, but on Android if you sideload an app that could be malicious, the Play Store has play protect and scans malicious apks like an anti virus. But also phones are much better sandboxed and secured then desktop, so their security against malicious software is much stronger.

      • @Pluckerpluck@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        English
        9
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        While not impossible, you have to try fairly hard to fuck up your phone like this. I’d be actively impressed if your story is true (particularly as you used the plural), and if so I’d like to know what they were specifically trying to install that fucked up their phones.

        It’s just statistically more likely they downloaded a malicious app from the Play Store than had any chaos side loading.

        • @histic@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          01 year ago

          The plural is I just do it now cause i don’t wanna have to deal with it again and I don’t trust them but it was a obvious scam they clicked on and guy over a phone talked her through it

    • @stoly@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      -471 year ago

      For me, security is really the only question here. If you want to, you can find a way to sideload things. But once you have an entire app store out there, suddenly a whole new avenue of attack has appeared that didn’t exist prior.

      • cum
        link
        fedilink
        English
        451 year ago

        Android already has had this for many years and it is not an issue. We don’t need to deal with hypotheticals here, Android has put these things into practice for a long time already, and it’s a non issue.

        • @stoly@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          -381 year ago

          LOL this is not a hypothetical. there are already bad apps in the regular app store. now you have two.

          also Android has nothing on the security posture of Apple.

          • @lolcatnip@reddthat.com
            link
            fedilink
            English
            321 year ago

            So you admit having a walled garden doesn’t protect you from malicious apps, but you still want on to…protect you from malicious apps?

            • @stoly@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              -261 year ago

              I just want you to envision a moment where the opportunity for two bad things happening is worse than one.

              Honestly I really don’t get the anger here except that everyone has decided that opening the floodgates is the only way forward.

              • @wearling0600@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                101 year ago

                So then… continue using exclusively Apple’s store then?

                If you consider Apple to be the gold standard for security, you have just keep going as you are.

                I don’t see how giving other people the freedom to choose infringes on your security.

                • @Pluckerpluck@programming.dev
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  51 year ago

                  No you fool! Don’t you see that because Wish exists buying from Best Buy is also a scam?!

                  Honestly I don’t get people like this. Are they trying to protect other people? I’ve never seen it framed that way, but it’s the only reasonable explanation.

              • @Ruinam@lemmy.wtf
                link
                fedilink
                English
                41 year ago

                You really need to explain this to me. Assuming apple provides a security benefit, then the same benefit still exist if you do not use the sideloading, except for apps that do not want to get checked by apple. But you only want apps that are secure also that are checked. How is the ability to get (maybe) less secure apps a danger to you, given thst you will still use the app store.