neoncat

Cesar Battistini Maziero said:

It’s a sad day for freedom. 

omg the performative Apple sycophant drama surrounding this whole saga is easily the most insufferable part, even more than either of the Tim’s posturing. 

mike1 said:

I'm sure they will get flack for it, but I hope there will be a way in settings to prohibit the download of anything that isn't from the app store.

I am foreseeing the nightmare ahead when my click-happy mom starts accidentally/unwittingly downloading stuff from all the ads in her games and e-mail etc.

This is a scammer's dream.

I hope people can find the time while clutching all those pearls to realize that this is a problem almost entirely of Apple's own creation. By discarding the value of the safety of their platform to chase every possible cent of revenue, they willingly dismissed concerns like yours. There were measures Apple could have taken to protect the walled garden for all its benefits. They chose not to because those choices would've represented giving up the chance to squeeze every last dime out of the construct.

Now, no one wins: App Store revenue will decline, and safety will be compromised. It's classic Apple—die on every hill, convinced to the end they are right, and at the end having nothing at all to show for it. Blinded by arrogance, avarice, and greed.

Good read, but this line stands out as the real takeaway:

And instead of just downloading an app when we need it, we will have to vigilant — and finally read those terms and conditions.

Anything that teaches, by hook or by crook, by reward or by cudgel, the "general populace" (waving hands around) to take their security into their own hands and balance petty wants against risk will only benefit them in the long term. Because guess what? Apple itself is only motivated by its desire to make money, as much of it as possible. 

Given how the App Store is packed full of scam apps, gatcha games, quickly-approved apps that are little more than rip offs of existing IP, and apps with privacy reports cards that don't actually match the data that the apps collect (not to mention Apple's strong-arming developers into adopting subscriptions again in order to feed its rapacious desire for recurring revenue), the blind trust placed in Apple to assume guardianship of our security, privacy, and the overall experience of acquiring applications is misplaced, as it is always misplaced when we abdicate our personal responsibility. 

Whether one central app store or dozens, assume none of them are looking out for your best interest. Because they're not.

Mr. Hilliard, you're a fine writer and I enjoy your articles. But your increasing need to challenge readers with parochial arguments in the comments is a bad look (not that my opinion matters, of course.)

I have no real skin in this game—I don't live in the EU. I tend to like more open systems than more closed, but I get the advantages Apple's approach brings, even if it also brings tremendous baggage and restrictions that deserve to be challenged. More importantly, however: Dominos have an interesting way of continuing to fall. The longer Apple digs in its heels, the less control it will have over outcomes. Which is such classic Apple behavior: Kick and scream until the terms are fully dictated and then they have zero chance to represent their viewpoint, whether on behalf of their customers or their own financial goals. They should let go of the App Store before the whole thing, bad *and* good, gets burned to the ground. 

There is zero benefit to AI's mission, audience, or reputation to give DED this much space to say so impossibly little. Meandering daydreams as if spoken from a sideshow preacher's pulpit. 

I don't always agree with what AI writes or its tone, and that's OK! I still take something, or learn something, from every article. Except these. I am dumber for having spent the time.