IMO the Google vs Apple, Apple vs Epic Games and all other similar cases are secondary. My main issue with Apple is that it is violating user rights - the users, who owns the device - should have the freedom of doing any thing they want (including installing any app they want) with the device. It's not Apple's place to arbitrarily decide what I can or cannot do with my phone.
I think so too but I don't buy Apple in that case. I have spend < 10$ on apps from stores and it was mostly just a test for me. I don't like smartphones as software platforms at all, I think we could have done much better than what the market supplies but I have niche expectations the common companies cannot fulfill. That said, the casual users in my circle don't spend anything on apps either. That isn't a good solution as well, since the alternatives finance themselves via adds.
Before app stores, you could actually get real free software that didn't use customer data to finance themselves. Sustainable as a business? Perhaps not, but certainly an advantage to users.
I don't buy Apple either but its getting frustrating when they take the best talent to build the best chips. Good for them but what if the trend continues such that the alternatives are at a serious hardware disadvantage?
There is the danger that users aren't educated and would accept everything the app does. I'd say casual users want and expect some kind of protection.
Is that fine? If yes, I guess we'd need to make the "install anything" option sufficiently inaccessible to the regular user. Is that ok? In this case is Apple's Dev Program an acceptable solution?
I'm asking lots of questions, because I genuinely wouldn't know how to approach this. What this difficult is that I'm fine with the current state. I don't use my phone for hacking and I'm happy that someone else monitors apps, even if it means that I have to pay more or go through additional steps to run my own code.
Windows and MacOS have a different user base (I'd guess most non-tech users prefer mobile for personal use).
Android's big scary full screen warnings didn't seem to work, people allowed weather apps to read their messages. I was referring to this in my earlier message:
> There is the danger that users aren't educated and would accept everything the app does. I'd say casual users want and expect some kind of protection.
> It's not Apple's place to arbitrarily decide what I can or cannot do with my phone
This is a good way to kill Epic's fight.
If I want a hackable general-purpose computer, I can get one. I have one. The iPhone is not that. That's made clear at the time of purchase. It's a tradeoff between freedom and specific utility, and it delivers the latter in droves.
As a result, most Americans are fine with it. "Free software" is a great mantra from an important minority or Americans. But it's a minority nonetheless.
Big tech antitrust, on the other hand, is going mainstream. Epic's fight is riding that wave. Muddying it with an old and weaker argument is not helpful.
Then make the case. I think there should be general purpose computers. But not every computer need be one. There are advantages to a locked-down ecosystem.
> But not every computer need be one. There are advantages to a locked-down ecosystem.
I agree with it. But I think game consoles should be locked but smartphones shouldn't. Finally I predict that smartphones to be the Computer for citizen.
