This keeps coming up, so I'll post this thought again.
The point of consumer choice occurs at the selection of device and OS platform. Many people choose Apple and iOS because of the closed App Store system. It provides much greater security and consistency for consumers than the other options. Forcing Apple to be more like Android by allowing side-loading and alternate App Stores will reduce consumer choice by eliminating an option that currently exists when purchasing a smartphone. Many app developers -including those who are currently available through the App Store- would choose the easier path of avoiding the privacy and security requirements of the Apple App Store and will only make their wares available via less stringent app stores or via direct side-loading. These developers want to be on iPhone and they're jumping through the hoops now, but if they don't have to, they won't when they're given the option not to. This will reduce consumer choice, not increase it.
There is no evidence to support that claim so why not oblige Apple to provide it by spelling out to consumers what they will be giving up by purchasing an iPhone?
It could be as simple as that. Then we would really know what they care about and what they don't.
And it's not only Apple that thinks third party app stores and side loading are not good from a security and privacy standpoint, Google knows that it is. Are you also going to question Google's finding, on their own Android platform?
Here's what I want to know ..... Why isn't the EU more informative about what harms their new DMA laws might cause consumers? Why aren't you bitching about that? Just like how you always seem to accuse Apple of not being more informative to their users about what they are doing. Why isn't the EU telling consumer that by forcing Apple to allow third party app stores and side loading, Apple iOS platform will most likely be less secure, not only from malware but from a privacy standpoint. And that searching for an app on iOS might be made more complicated. And how is this going to increase consumers choice, when it comes to selecting a mobile platform? There will still be only two main platforms, only they will be made more similar. Reducing the difference between two choices, from two different competitors, will end up like the one choice consumers have when there's a monopoly. Even if this might lead to choices for the developers, shouldn't the EU inform the consumers what they might be giving up?
The point I was referring to was the main point of his post:
"The point of consumer choice occurs at the selection of device and OS platform. Many people choose Apple and iOS because of the closed App Store system. It provides much greater security and consistency for consumers than the other options".
There is zero evidence to support that and Googling it won't get you an answer either.
In fact, if you were to survey users, I'm sure the opposite would be true. The vast majority of users have no idea of the extent of the limitations imposed by Apple.
Having choice does not mean you are any less secure if you simply choose not to leave the Apple App Store.
Choice is one thing. Security is another.
Google's finding are irrelevant because of that.
Part of the Apple security plan comes at the expense of choice. What makes it worse is that Apple chooses the store for you and as it has that choice, it chooses its own - and guarantees itself, and only itself, a cut of revenues.
The Apple App Store is not failsafe, though. There is no such thing as 100% security and within that reality there is nothing that means for sure that Apple's App Store is even the most secure.
Third party app stores could be chock full of malware. Third party app stores could also be more secure than the Apple App Store.
This keeps coming up, so I'll post this thought again.
The point of consumer choice occurs at the selection of device and OS platform. Many people choose Apple and iOS because of the closed App Store system. It provides much greater security and consistency for consumers than the other options. Forcing Apple to be more like Android by allowing side-loading and alternate App Stores will reduce consumer choice by eliminating an option that currently exists when purchasing a smartphone. Many app developers -including those who are currently available through the App Store- would choose the easier path of avoiding the privacy and security requirements of the Apple App Store and will only make their wares available via less stringent app stores or via direct side-loading. These developers want to be on iPhone and they're jumping through the hoops now, but if they don't have to, they won't when they're given the option not to. This will reduce consumer choice, not increase it.
There is no evidence to support that claim so why not oblige Apple to provide it by spelling out to consumers what they will be giving up by purchasing an iPhone?
It could be as simple as that. Then we would really know what they care about and what they don't.
And it's not only Apple that thinks third party app stores and side loading are not good from a security and privacy standpoint, Google knows that it is. Are you also going to question Google's finding, on their own Android platform?
Here's what I want to know ..... Why isn't the EU more informative about what harms their new DMA laws might cause consumers? Why aren't you bitching about that? Just like how you always seem to accuse Apple of not being more informative to their users about what they are doing. Why isn't the EU telling consumer that by forcing Apple to allow third party app stores and side loading, Apple iOS platform will most likely be less secure, not only from malware but from a privacy standpoint. And that searching for an app on iOS might be made more complicated. And how is this going to increase consumers choice, when it comes to selecting a mobile platform? There will still be only two main platforms, only they will be made more similar. Reducing the difference between two choices, from two different competitors, will end up like the one choice consumers have when there's a monopoly. Even if this might lead to choices for the developers, shouldn't the EU inform the consumers what they might be giving up?
The point I was referring to was the main point of his post:
"The point of consumer choice occurs at the selection of device and OS platform. Many people choose Apple and iOS because of the closed App Store system. It provides much greater security and consistency for consumers than the other options".
There is zero evidence to support that and Googling it won't get you an answer either.
In fact, if you were to survey users, I'm sure the opposite would be true. The vast majority of users have no idea of the extent of the limitations imposed by Apple.
Having choice does not mean you are any less secure if you simply choose not to leave the Apple App Store.
Choice is one thing. Security is another.
Google's finding are irrelevant because of that.
Part of the Apple security plan comes at the expense of choice. What makes it worse is that Apple chooses the store for you and as it has that choice, it chooses its own - and guarantees itself, and only itself, a cut of revenues.
The Apple App Store is not failsafe, though. There is no such thing as 100% security and within that reality there is nothing that means for sure that Apple's App Store is even the most secure.
Third party app stores could be chock full of malware. Third party app stores could also be more secure than the Apple App Store.
That is no reason for them not to exist though.
The vast majority of users have no idea of the extent of the limitations imposed by Apple. - I don't agree with this generalization at all. This is true for the first time iPhone buyers. What do you think is the percentage of first time iPhone buyers in 2022? It is miniscule. Vast majority of the iPhone buyers in 2023 are repeat buyers, i.e. they are already aware of all of the iOS's limitations/terms and conditions having got used to them for many years. So this assertion is not based on reality. The exact opposite is true now. Vast majority of users are aware of the limitations imposed by Apple. Whoever is not happy about those limitations - they are not going to buy an iPhone next time if they are unhappy about the limitations. If they still go ahead and buy an iPhone next time, they cannot claim that they are not aware of the limitations. They are aware of the limitations, but still decided to buy an iPhone anyway because it suits their need overall, considering all other factors.
This keeps coming up, so I'll post this thought again.
The point of consumer choice occurs at the selection of device and OS platform. Many people choose Apple and iOS because of the closed App Store system. It provides much greater security and consistency for consumers than the other options. Forcing Apple to be more like Android by allowing side-loading and alternate App Stores will reduce consumer choice by eliminating an option that currently exists when purchasing a smartphone. Many app developers -including those who are currently available through the App Store- would choose the easier path of avoiding the privacy and security requirements of the Apple App Store and will only make their wares available via less stringent app stores or via direct side-loading. These developers want to be on iPhone and they're jumping through the hoops now, but if they don't have to, they won't when they're given the option not to. This will reduce consumer choice, not increase it.
There is no evidence to support that claim so why not oblige Apple to provide it by spelling out to consumers what they will be giving up by purchasing an iPhone?
It could be as simple as that. Then we would really know what they care about and what they don't.
And it's not only Apple that thinks third party app stores and side loading are not good from a security and privacy standpoint, Google knows that it is. Are you also going to question Google's finding, on their own Android platform?
Here's what I want to know ..... Why isn't the EU more informative about what harms their new DMA laws might cause consumers? Why aren't you bitching about that? Just like how you always seem to accuse Apple of not being more informative to their users about what they are doing. Why isn't the EU telling consumer that by forcing Apple to allow third party app stores and side loading, Apple iOS platform will most likely be less secure, not only from malware but from a privacy standpoint. And that searching for an app on iOS might be made more complicated. And how is this going to increase consumers choice, when it comes to selecting a mobile platform? There will still be only two main platforms, only they will be made more similar. Reducing the difference between two choices, from two different competitors, will end up like the one choice consumers have when there's a monopoly. Even if this might lead to choices for the developers, shouldn't the EU inform the consumers what they might be giving up?
The point I was referring to was the main point of his post:
"The point of consumer choice occurs at the selection of device and OS platform. Many people choose Apple and iOS because of the closed App Store system. It provides much greater security and consistency for consumers than the other options".
There is zero evidence to support that and Googling it won't get you an answer either.
In fact, if you were to survey users, I'm sure the opposite would be true. The vast majority of users have no idea of the extent of the limitations imposed by Apple.
Having choice does not mean you are any less secure if you simply choose not to leave the Apple App Store.
Choice is one thing. Security is another.
Google's finding are irrelevant because of that.
Part of the Apple security plan comes at the expense of choice. What makes it worse is that Apple chooses the store for you and as it has that choice, it chooses its own - and guarantees itself, and only itself, a cut of revenues.
The Apple App Store is not failsafe, though. There is no such thing as 100% security and within that reality there is nothing that means for sure that Apple's App Store is even the most secure.
Third party app stores could be chock full of malware. Third party app stores could also be more secure than the Apple App Store.
That is no reason for them not to exist though.
The vast majority of users have no idea of the extent of the limitations imposed by Apple. - I don't agree with this generalization at all. This is true for the first time iPhone buyers. What do you think is the percentage of first time iPhone buyers in 2022? It is miniscule. Vast majority of the iPhone buyers in 2023 are repeat buyers, i.e. they are already aware of all of the iOS's limitations/terms and conditions having got used to them for many years. So this assertion is not based on reality. The exact opposite is true now. Vast majority of users are aware of the limitations imposed by Apple. Whoever is not happy about those limitations - they are not going to buy an iPhone next time if they are unhappy about the limitations. If they still go ahead and buy an iPhone next time, they cannot claim that they are not aware of the limitations. They are aware of the limitations, but still decided to buy an iPhone anyway because it suits their need overall, considering all other factors.
In the absence of simple survey data, an absolute answer isn't possible but it is a conversation that I often bring up with iPhone users I encounter.
None (that is an absolute zero here) were aware of the limitations imposed by Apple. Understanding that there is only one app store for iOS devices isn't the same as understanding the decisions Apple imposes that have a direct impact on users through the App Store.
People use Safari but are oblivious to the fact that under that, developers are forced to use WebKit.
People don't know that it isn't possible to install apps from anywhere but the App Store precisely because they haven't used anything else. If your needs are catered to by the App Store, then why look elsewhere? Likewise they are completely unaware of the fact that only Apple gets a cut of paid software and impedes competition because third party apps stores aren't allowed.
The same with Apple Pay. Users stick there cards in it, oblivious to the fact that the Apple Wallet is the only wallet that is allowed to exist.
When I ask those users what they think about these situations they are opposed to them but they accept them with 'shrugged shoulders'.
No one has ever mentioned the only reason they buy iPhones is for the security.
Curiously, no Android user has ever mentioned security to me either and I think that says a lot about the situation.
This keeps coming up, so I'll post this thought again.
The point of consumer choice occurs at the selection of device and OS platform. Many people choose Apple and iOS because of the closed App Store system. It provides much greater security and consistency for consumers than the other options. Forcing Apple to be more like Android by allowing side-loading and alternate App Stores will reduce consumer choice by eliminating an option that currently exists when purchasing a smartphone. Many app developers -including those who are currently available through the App Store- would choose the easier path of avoiding the privacy and security requirements of the Apple App Store and will only make their wares available via less stringent app stores or via direct side-loading. These developers want to be on iPhone and they're jumping through the hoops now, but if they don't have to, they won't when they're given the option not to. This will reduce consumer choice, not increase it.
There is no evidence to support that claim so why not oblige Apple to provide it by spelling out to consumers what they will be giving up by purchasing an iPhone?
It could be as simple as that. Then we would really know what they care about and what they don't.
And it's not only Apple that thinks third party app stores and side loading are not good from a security and privacy standpoint, Google knows that it is. Are you also going to question Google's finding, on their own Android platform?
Here's what I want to know ..... Why isn't the EU more informative about what harms their new DMA laws might cause consumers? Why aren't you bitching about that? Just like how you always seem to accuse Apple of not being more informative to their users about what they are doing. Why isn't the EU telling consumer that by forcing Apple to allow third party app stores and side loading, Apple iOS platform will most likely be less secure, not only from malware but from a privacy standpoint. And that searching for an app on iOS might be made more complicated. And how is this going to increase consumers choice, when it comes to selecting a mobile platform? There will still be only two main platforms, only they will be made more similar. Reducing the difference between two choices, from two different competitors, will end up like the one choice consumers have when there's a monopoly. Even if this might lead to choices for the developers, shouldn't the EU inform the consumers what they might be giving up?
The point I was referring to was the main point of his post:
"The point of consumer choice occurs at the selection of device and OS platform. Many people choose Apple and iOS because of the closed App Store system. It provides much greater security and consistency for consumers than the other options".
There is zero evidence to support that and Googling it won't get you an answer either.
In fact, if you were to survey users, I'm sure the opposite would be true. The vast majority of users have no idea of the extent of the limitations imposed by Apple.
Having choice does not mean you are any less secure if you simply choose not to leave the Apple App Store.
Choice is one thing. Security is another.
Google's finding are irrelevant because of that.
Part of the Apple security plan comes at the expense of choice. What makes it worse is that Apple chooses the store for you and as it has that choice, it chooses its own - and guarantees itself, and only itself, a cut of revenues.
The Apple App Store is not failsafe, though. There is no such thing as 100% security and within that reality there is nothing that means for sure that Apple's App Store is even the most secure.
Third party app stores could be chock full of malware. Third party app stores could also be more secure than the Apple App Store.
That is no reason for them not to exist though.
The vast majority of users have no idea of the extent of the limitations imposed by Apple. - I don't agree with this generalization at all. This is true for the first time iPhone buyers. What do you think is the percentage of first time iPhone buyers in 2022? It is miniscule. Vast majority of the iPhone buyers in 2023 are repeat buyers, i.e. they are already aware of all of the iOS's limitations/terms and conditions having got used to them for many years. So this assertion is not based on reality. The exact opposite is true now. Vast majority of users are aware of the limitations imposed by Apple. Whoever is not happy about those limitations - they are not going to buy an iPhone next time if they are unhappy about the limitations. If they still go ahead and buy an iPhone next time, they cannot claim that they are not aware of the limitations. They are aware of the limitations, but still decided to buy an iPhone anyway because it suits their need overall, considering all other factors.
In the absence of simple survey data, an absolute answer isn't possible but it is a conversation that I often bring up with iPhone users I encounter.
None (that is an absolute zero here) were aware of the limitations imposed by Apple. Understanding that there is only one app store for iOS devices isn't the same as understanding the decisions Apple imposes that have a direct impact on users through the App Store.
People use Safari but are oblivious to the fact that under that, developers are forced to use WebKit.
People don't know that it isn't possible to install apps from anywhere but the App Store precisely because they haven't used anything else. If your needs are catered to by the App Store, then why look elsewhere? Likewise they are completely unaware of the fact that only Apple gets a cut of paid software and impedes competition because third party apps stores aren't allowed.
The same with Apple Pay. Users stick there cards in it, oblivious to the fact that the Apple Wallet is the only wallet that is allowed to exist.
When I ask those users what they think about these situations they are opposed to them but they accept them with 'shrugged shoulders'.
No one has ever mentioned the only reason they buy iPhones is for the security.
Curiously, no Android user has ever mentioned security to me either and I think that says a lot about the situation.
Every last one of those iPhone users you've chatted up has ticked the user agreement during setup and every time they install an iOS update. If they are uninformed about the contents of the user agreement, it's not because they haven't been told. Showing them the user agreement prior to purchasing the device (this is what you've insisted must happen) isn't going to change any of that.
No one (especially not me) has suggested that the "only reason" anyone buys an iPhone is "for the security." It's daft to suggest that this means that security isn't an important reason for their selection. People buy iPhones because they just work. They're easy to use, they don't crash, and the UI is consistent across pretty much any app you can run on it. Apple App Store policies are a significant reason they just work.
Your anecdotal experience asking people leading questions is less than meaningless. Ask a hundred people if they like paying taxes and you'll get a hundred negative responses. Ask the same hundred people if they'd feel the same way if that means there will be no fire department responding when they call, and you'll get a very different answer from them.
I'm sure many of the people you talked to had indeed never thought about the fact that they can't side-load software on their iPhone, and if they hadn't thought about that, they surely haven't thought about the security risks of doing so. They just like their iPhone and want it to continue working like it does.
It's also a pretty good bet that none of those folks remember much about the hot mess that was the third-party software business prior to the iPhone and App Store completely changing the paradigm. They won't remember having to sort out on their own if an application will be compatible with their hardware, OS, and with all the other applications already installed. They won't remember that OS upgrades were expensive, not free. They won't remember that OS upgrades would often kill prior versions of third party applications already installed, and that upgrades to make those applications compatible would be delayed by months if they ever came, and if they did, they would also not be free.
The point is that the iPhone and App Store completely changed the way all of that works, by making it easy and seamless for the consumer. It's that very same ease and seamlessness that created an entire new consumer market and software development industry that did not exist previously. If your little anecdotal inquiries provided that information prior to asking if they want to be able to freely side-load apps and go back to all that, your answers would be very different.
It's hilariously ironic that your beef with Apple is that they don't inform users of their terms of service (and explicitly call out the sole App Store) prior to selling them an iPhone, but your methodology for claiming they wouldn't buy the devices if they were "properly informed" is to ask random people leading questions without fully informing them of the potential consequences of the answers you coax out of them.
Comments
"The point of consumer choice occurs at the selection of device and OS platform. Many people choose Apple and iOS because of the closed App Store system. It provides much greater security and consistency for consumers than the other options".
There is zero evidence to support that and Googling it won't get you an answer either.
In fact, if you were to survey users, I'm sure the opposite would be true. The vast majority of users have no idea of the extent of the limitations imposed by Apple.
Having choice does not mean you are any less secure if you simply choose not to leave the Apple App Store.
Choice is one thing. Security is another.
Google's finding are irrelevant because of that.
Part of the Apple security plan comes at the expense of choice. What makes it worse is that Apple chooses the store for you and as it has that choice, it chooses its own - and guarantees itself, and only itself, a cut of revenues.
The Apple App Store is not failsafe, though. There is no such thing as 100% security and within that reality there is nothing that means for sure that Apple's App Store is even the most secure.
Third party app stores could be chock full of malware. Third party app stores could also be more secure than the Apple App Store.
That is no reason for them not to exist though.
None (that is an absolute zero here) were aware of the limitations imposed by Apple. Understanding that there is only one app store for iOS devices isn't the same as understanding the decisions Apple imposes that have a direct impact on users through the App Store.
People use Safari but are oblivious to the fact that under that, developers are forced to use WebKit.
People don't know that it isn't possible to install apps from anywhere but the App Store precisely because they haven't used anything else. If your needs are catered to by the App Store, then why look elsewhere? Likewise they are completely unaware of the fact that only Apple gets a cut of paid software and impedes competition because third party apps stores aren't allowed.
The same with Apple Pay. Users stick there cards in it, oblivious to the fact that the Apple Wallet is the only wallet that is allowed to exist.
When I ask those users what they think about these situations they are opposed to them but they accept them with 'shrugged shoulders'.
No one has ever mentioned the only reason they buy iPhones is for the security.
Curiously, no Android user has ever mentioned security to me either and I think that says a lot about the situation.
No one (especially not me) has suggested that the "only reason" anyone buys an iPhone is "for the security." It's daft to suggest that this means that security isn't an important reason for their selection. People buy iPhones because they just work. They're easy to use, they don't crash, and the UI is consistent across pretty much any app you can run on it. Apple App Store policies are a significant reason they just work.
Your anecdotal experience asking people leading questions is less than meaningless. Ask a hundred people if they like paying taxes and you'll get a hundred negative responses. Ask the same hundred people if they'd feel the same way if that means there will be no fire department responding when they call, and you'll get a very different answer from them.
I'm sure many of the people you talked to had indeed never thought about the fact that they can't side-load software on their iPhone, and if they hadn't thought about that, they surely haven't thought about the security risks of doing so. They just like their iPhone and want it to continue working like it does.
It's also a pretty good bet that none of those folks remember much about the hot mess that was the third-party software business prior to the iPhone and App Store completely changing the paradigm. They won't remember having to sort out on their own if an application will be compatible with their hardware, OS, and with all the other applications already installed. They won't remember that OS upgrades were expensive, not free. They won't remember that OS upgrades would often kill prior versions of third party applications already installed, and that upgrades to make those applications compatible would be delayed by months if they ever came, and if they did, they would also not be free.
The point is that the iPhone and App Store completely changed the way all of that works, by making it easy and seamless for the consumer. It's that very same ease and seamlessness that created an entire new consumer market and software development industry that did not exist previously. If your little anecdotal inquiries provided that information prior to asking if they want to be able to freely side-load apps and go back to all that, your answers would be very different.
It's hilariously ironic that your beef with Apple is that they don't inform users of their terms of service (and explicitly call out the sole App Store) prior to selling them an iPhone, but your methodology for claiming they wouldn't buy the devices if they were "properly informed" is to ask random people leading questions without fully informing them of the potential consequences of the answers you coax out of them.