I just want the build quality and attention to detail that Apple does with all their shit, but also have the freedom to sideloard pirated apps from a sketchy Russian warez site.
Works on Android:
- The Play Store exists
- All apps run in secured containers
- Sketchy* apps run in VMs
- Rooting disables banking and security apps
(* including all versions of Windows)
I think they also want the curated way that apple let’s an application into the app store.
the play store is kinda not very restrictive…
I think everyone jumping on this and trying to argue that Apple is so very wrong in this assertion that people will get bombarded with malicious garbage is coming at this from the wrong angle. The part that I think we should be pushing back on in the argument that, in order to protect them from themselves, we should allow Apple to restrict them unilaterally.
People, in general, make just awful decisions in terms of security and quality of the apps they download. We’ve seen it since the very first app store and it continues today. “But Android apps can be side loaded and it’s not that bad” Yes, it is that bad. The fact that you, someone that is more informed and experienced than the average, can navigate this successfully and safely is not an indicator of the general population.
Ultimately, the argument that people will mess this up is objectively true. The place we should push back is the argument that we should allow Apple to protect us from ourselves.
If Apple believes they can cultivate a safer and higher quality app store, they should take that message to the people. Convince them that if they stay in Apple’s app store ecosystem, they will be happier and safer. If you can’t convince them, though, the law should not allow you to force them into compliance. If we have a variety of marketplaces, they will need to differentiate themselves from one another somehow. That’s most likely going to be on price, but we could also have someone step up to make a market focused on security, privacy, or some other value proposition.
“It won’t expose people to bad apps” is just the wrong argument. We should instead just say “Yeah. And?” The freedom to make that decision, and possibly make those mistakes, isn’t the problem - it’s the point
“we’ve seen your data and quite frankly we don’t like it”
OK, but dont like half of all people usw Android and Windows?
If they were right we should be able to See the effects of the regulation, right? right?
I don’t even need to read the article to know that they didn’t actually say that.
But they did, just with different words.
So they didn’t…
The title should quote what they actually said rather than putting their own bias on it. You’d call them out for twisting your words like that. Hold yourself to the same standards.
As a reader, you can’t rely on headlines to be a replacement for reading the article. Headlines tend to be shorter than the corresponding article and require a level of summarization to be effective.
But I’m not criticizing them for failing to summarize the entire article in the headline. I’m criticizing them for being biased - and for clearly showing that bias in how they chose to write the headline. This isn’t neutral reporting on what’s happening.
Recognizing bias is indeed important. But every source has some bias. Refusing to engage with biased sources will rule out everything. If you think it doesn’t rule out something, you’ve found your own bias! Good, it’s powerful to know your own bias.
Neutrality is in fact its own bias. Not everything need or should be neutral.
So, check the source. Eff? OK you know or can readily discover they are going to have a bias toward protecting individuals online. Read the piece knowing that and you can get valuable information from it.
If you like, you can reference the information with attribution, Eg “the Eff says…” to avoid taking on their own bias as your own.
It’s the EFF. They’re not neutral. They advocate for stuff - that’s their whole thing.
Except the title isn’t a quote, it’s a paraphrase - hence why there are no quotation marks.
You could say “Midnitte to OpinionHaver: their opinion is stupid and wrong”, even if the actual statement was, “Midnitte said OpinionHaver was wrong and making incorrect judgments about language”.
Apple’s statement is probably much longer than would fit into a sensible title bar…
Well, I did read it. Obviously Apple didn’t use those exact words, but the argument is the same: users are incapable of making safe decisions and need to be protected from themselves.
