I think the critical component to this conversation that its important to stay focused on is not Apple's removal of Parler, but their continued insistence on maintaining exclusive control over what people install on their devices.
Apple should have the right to control what they distribute through their app store; this is undeniable in my mind. A reasonable, though not as obviously sound, argument could be made that at some level of scope and scale its alright to sell general purpose hardware limited to one operating system which delegates control over executable code to the manufacturer. I believe its also clear that Apple is far past any values of scope and scale where this is reasonable for them, specifically.
No one in these comments is talking about Google. Same thing happened with Fortnite; the conversation is all about Apple. This is a signal that the issue here really isn't their decision to allow or ban specific apps; its the core platform decision to allow or ban application distribution channels.
I think (but not sure) this thread was combined from multiple separate threads, some of which were only about Apple or Google or Amazon's actions. It seems like several threads with a few hundred comments each disappeared, and this one with 2k comments appeared out of nowhere.
That might explain why it looks like all of the comments are about one or the other.
Yes, I believe that's what happened here. Very poor decision by the mods; the Google/Apple ones make sense to merge, but the AWS one is a very different issue, and could have a far more interesting technical discussion about migration paths.
> their continued insistence on maintaining exclusive control over what people install on their devices
Think of iOS devices like gaming consoles with a GSM chip and you'll have a better analogy.
You can't install your own software on an Xbox, Playstation or Switch without going through some hoops. Neither can you get any random piece of software in their stores without complying with their rules.
> Imagine if MS could do this back in the 90s on Windows, would that have been acceptable?
It was not acceptable and they were forced to display a browser selection pop-up, on a OS that already freely allowed users to install whatever browser they wished.
Contrast this with Apple's iOS, where they somehow get away with not allowing any other browser engine than Safari's Webkit.
> It was not acceptable and they were forced to display a browser selection pop-up, on a OS that already freely allowed users to install whatever browser they wished.
In Europe. I once tried to uninstall IE in 2005, and it was a complete comedy of errors that lead to me re-installing Windows.
I understand this logic but my worry is since smartphones have become the primary computing device for millions of people ("What's a computer?") treating them as closed systems like gaming consoles is a bad approach.
I think what's better for the consumer, and society in general I suppose, is to treat them as general computing devices. Especially as we see them converge with PCs (e.g. tablets with keyboards replacing laptops).
Consider the following: If you had to pick only one, would you replace your PC with a gaming console, or a smartphone? I worry the vast majority of people would choose the smartphone, and as such we would have replaced the open PC culture we have now with a closed, proprietary culture.
Game consoles are the exact reason why I included the line about "at some values of scope and scale".
I do feel they're an interesting analogue; they sell hundreds of millions of units, the scale is there, but why do I, if no one else, hold them to a different standard than phones? At the end of the day, I do hold them to a different standard, even if I don't have a fully logical argument for why.
I'm satisfied enough with three reasons, though none represent a fully logical argument.
First, they have very limited scope. Every game console does one thing: play games. Some game consoles do a second thing: watch movies and tv. There are platform features to support those goals (parties, voice chat, friends, etc), but that's effectively it.
In comparison, phones have undefined potential scope. They're used for everything anyone could need computing for, usually only limited by the screen size, input systems, processing power, and in the iPhone's case, Apple's 2010s attitude about what your phone is for.
Second, that limited scope described above is wholly "non-critical infrastructure". I love gaming; definitely more than most people. I have a Series X and a PS5 sitting next to my TV, while I'm typing this on a PC with a RTX 2070. Gaming can lead to some very powerful, life-changing moments for some people, and its been a godsend during this pandemic for many. But, its still Just Gaming.
I would define both Communication and News, among others, as computing scopes which are critical infrastructure; these are both things people use their phones for, and they're both scopes which Apple has a demonstrated history of assaulting on the iPhone.
Third, there's very little conversation from actual stakeholders concerning game consoles changing. I try to keep apprised with the games industry, and by extension how game developers feel about the major platforms; the discussion about Microsoft, Sony, or Nintendo opening their platforms simply isn't happening. While they do have final control over what is allowed to be played on each console, even with the physical disc market, there's very few incidents of them abusing that control to restrict distribution of a game that desired distribution on each console. There certainly are games which haven't even attempted approval and would be shut down (steam has many anime porn games like this), but the problem certainly isn't as severe as on iOS (due to the limited scope, combined with specialized development skillset, combined with individual investment necessary to get a game working on each platform, I imagine).
There's a second argument, the Fortnite one, that secondary marketplaces aren't just necessary for freedom of speech, but also for revenue. All of these companies force games to use their IAP frameworks, which I'm sure takes something around 30%. Its definitely strange to me that Epic railed against Apple for the same policies they accept freely on Xbox, PS4, and Switch, and I have a less cogent explanation for this; either (1) they should be fine paying that tax to gain access to the platform, or (2) they shouldn't be, and thus should take issue with every platform exerting that control. Unfortunately, the reality is probably (3) Sony owns 2% of Epic, Epic cuts special deals with every platform, and those deals have kept them happy for now, despite not applying to the majority of game developers, and Apple is actually in the right on this specific issue in never giving special deals.
Its important to remember that the way Apple and Google treat game developers is, frankly, garbage. That previous statement I made about Apple never giving special deals actually isn't true: Amazon uses their own IAP framework for digital purchases on Kindle and Prime Video. Fortnite is definitely the same scale as these use cases, but they couldn't negotiate a special deal. Google allows applications to use whatever IAP framework they want (IIRC), but not Games; Games have to use Google's 30% tax IAP framework. Due to these policies, Google and Apple are both Top 5 "Gaming Companies" by revenue, despite not producing a single game. By comparison, real gaming platform holders (Sony, MS, Nintendo) negotiate all the time, and find middleground that keeps developers happy.
This conversation is, of course, happening every day with iOS. Nearly every app developer has a story about how Apple has slighted them. Most experience a weird review and recover from it. Some don't. Many have similar stories concerning Google and the Play Store, but its a far less interesting narrative because there are alternatives for Android users and developers. In fact, the best selling Android devices come with an alternative store pre-installed (Galaxy), all of the first-party apps on Samsung phones are distributed and updated through there (in other words, its users use it), and you can go download Fortnite there right now.
So, its not the "exact same". Its similar enough to where I keep an open mind, and I'm ready to join the cerebral fight for mindshare if the need for openness in consoles should occur, but I don't feel we're there yet. The first thing I'd need to see is actual game developers rally against a platform; maybe that isn't happening due to fear of retribution, but I think even considering that we'd be hearing anonymous rumblings, and I'm not even hearing that.
> I think the critical component to this conversation that its important to stay focused on is not Apple's removal of Parler, but their continued insistence on maintaining exclusive control over what people install on their devices.
This has been going on since the App store first launched. I remember speaking up about this years and years ago. There were two sides, and well, we know which side one: people just accepted that Apple gets to dictate what goes on the iPhone.
So at this point, I have no sympathy for anyone who suddenly realizes: "Hey, what are we doing? What are we allowing?"
Every cheered when Apple prevented Flash from running on the device. And then porn apps. And then cheap "flashlight" apps. Or apps that did nothing except cost $1000 for a JPEG of a red gem. Guess what? This is the end result.
So I always look for sincerity when people propose fighting back against this now. Because now that it affects them, they want a change, but do they really want change, or are they just being selfish. And it's always selfish. People are fighting for their piece of the pie.
The "fuck you, got mine" attitude.
> No one in these comments is talking about Google.
Google I can side load apps freely. Others can operate stores and do this. Google does not have this problem.
Apple should have the right to control what they distribute through their app store; this is undeniable in my mind. A reasonable, though not as obviously sound, argument could be made that at some level of scope and scale its alright to sell general purpose hardware limited to one operating system which delegates control over executable code to the manufacturer. I believe its also clear that Apple is far past any values of scope and scale where this is reasonable for them, specifically.
No one in these comments is talking about Google. Same thing happened with Fortnite; the conversation is all about Apple. This is a signal that the issue here really isn't their decision to allow or ban specific apps; its the core platform decision to allow or ban application distribution channels.