this post was submitted on 13 Jan 2024
378 points (99.2% liked)
Technology
59665 readers
3602 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Android has sideloading, does google take a lower cut than apple? No. Even with sideloading allowed, 99% people don't use it, majority android users probably don't even know about this thing called apks.
The option is there. Windows has an open platform, do you buy all your software and games through Microsoft or do you use the developer's website and third party launchers that have to compete on experience pricing?
Whether they are used or not doesn't matter, the first step is opening it up. And there are multiple apps that I get through alternative stores than the play store and it benefits the developer more so I don't really care what the other 99% are up to.
Thats because windows didn't have a store before 8, so everybody is used to downloading exe. And even today there isn't much on windows store. And i am not agaisnt sideloading, but there should be some safety measures too (maybe thats why windows needs antivirus?) to idiot proof sideloading. F droid is a great example of what sideloading should be.
So in the case that you are arguing there would be safeguards...you could continue to use the app store unhindered.
People should be free to install what they want, if they end up with malware that is their problem I'm not giving 30% to Apple because fuckwits can't excercise caution and educate themselves.
F droid is exactly what we are arguing for in this case, literally the exact thing this side of the argument is trying to make Apple facilitate.
If poor security practices only affected those responsible, I might agree with you on that front. As shown from the 23andMe "breach" and also how botnets are formed, individuals' poor security practices can affect many more people than just themselves. I feel we have a responsibility to protect people from doing stupid things, even if that might not be the most free thing to do.
Android has sideloading and Google takes 30% cut too. Sideloading is pointless if majority people don't know about it. Google for example will give you a fat warning if when you install f droid...oh this shit danger bro...don't install it. Yeah, it is dangerous ..for your business. Apple will do the same, oh technically we allow sideloading EU. And they will keep fearmongering. That is why this mentality of people that sideloading is alway bad needs to go away, for that only store like f droid should be allowed.
So you're argument is that because we can't get to perfect we shouldn't even bother trying good?
Competition regulators can mandate that large companies make their service available on multiple storefronts in the future but now we need them to mandate multiple storefronts.
The regulators can prevent Google from making it more difficult to use an alternative store. These are iterative changes.
If you look at macOS, you see that even apps not installed through the app store need to be signed from apple in order to not trigger a big ass warning. Apple on it’s own proofs that the security aspect is not an argument. Edit: I think windows does this as well to some degree
Windoss doesn't do jack shit, that defender crap will block good cracked apps but won't block actual malware. No wonder windows has bad rep about about virus, security etc
This just isn’t true. Defender is pretty much all you need to prevent malware these days.
Yes, cracks and such are also caught up in them, but that’s true of virtually every antivirus.
Software on Windows is still a bit of a mess compared to most other platforms though. The fact that it is normalized to download and install things from the various developer websites, without much verification and without permissions/restrictions on what the apps can do is not a plus in my mind. winget has been helpful in managing the installation and updating of things though.
Everyone having their own launcher is also not great, especially since they are not all created equal with respect to features, stability, and resource consumption. Games have had this problem for some time with EA, Ubisoft, Epic, etc having their own launchers. As like what happened to games, I don't think it will necessarily end up with more freedom to buy the apps from the store you want, but rather you'll be forced to download a store/launcher based on the whims of the app publisher. Some may publish to multiple stores but I don't expect all to.
If the mandate to open the platform up to more stores came with some kind of requirement that apps be available across multiple stores so that the stores actually had to be competitive on their own features, not app exclusivity, I would be more inclined to support having more stores.
You can't mandate that until there are multiple storefronts. That should be the next step.
As for everyone making you use their own app store, that will go down just as well as people who make me install their app, I won't.
Multiple storefronts doesn't mean taking a single app away from the app store. It means you can subscribe to Spotify for 30% less by using an alternative. It means developer's can argue for a larger cut of their revenue simply by having alternatives.
As for individual game launchers, steam is far and away the most popular and well liked and it, with the exception of a few of their own titles, a third party launcher.
Competition is good for the consumer.