This bring more choiche power to the final user. But are final users always in position to make such choiches? Do the final user always have the competence? If you open the app store walled gardens good things can enter, but even bad things. Today if you buy an iPhone to you son you sure that apps are reviewed by Apple. With this ACT, nor Apple, nor other provider can give you this certainty of app moderation.
I'm always amazed how people can be so receptive to this argument. I personally find it incredibly insulting that Nanny Apple tells me I don't know what's good for me; that they know what's good for me and it also happens to be incredibly lucrative for them and absolutely devastating for all would-be competition. Don't let them treat you like a child.
Speaking of children, I think you A) massively overestimate the security that Apple's current review process provides (it's really just an automated virus scanner, and not a very good one at that; nobody actually reviews the apps by hand) and B) assume for some reason that the EU would cavalierly conflate the rights of children with the rights of adults. There are tons of regulations that treat the two groups quite differently, and allowing parents to control the freedoms of their own children would not be incompatible with this regulation.
I’m a developer since 30 years and I love the iOS walled garden. Not because I hate choice but because I don’t want my phone to be a computer. I want it to be a dumb appliance. Same with my car or my refrigerator. It might be a computer, but I want the one that shows that the least which is currently iOS.
I choose to let Apple be my nanny and police the apps. That’s the choice. Does everyone need to be forced to make that choice? No. But the reason the platform is nice and polished is largely because they can make hundreds of millions run the same thing.
People are free to choose something different from Apple, something more open like Google or even more like a Opensource Linux Phone.
But are free to choose something closed like Apple if they want it and better fit needs. After the ACT a closed option such Apple ecosystem cannot exist anymore.
Apple can use their GIANT pile of cash to FUD the users into leaving Apple to think for them, also Apple could actually improve their security by using safer languages and actually collaborating with security people to close vulnerabilities faster. So basically if Apple really cares for security they can put money into it. Someone commented above that his native language support in Siri is garbage and Apple did not care to improve because theree was no competition, now if there will be competition you will get better software.
Your son can also open the door to strangers and let them in or can stab himself with a knife or fork. What are we going to do to make knives, forks and doors more secure?
Front doors that only allow themselves to be unlocked if the person knocking on the other side has been vetted and certified by the paternalistic door manufacturer, who by the way, gets a 30% cut of any deal you might make with that person.
Even if the door manufacturer uses a heuristic which frequently prevents your friends from visiting, but does allow dodgy salespeople to try to squeeze money out of you?
That is analogistically opposite to my experience as an iOS device user. When are my friends being blocked? Who are these dodgy salespeople you speak of?
I use an iPhone because I value the managed experience, somewhat more like an appliance than a computer. I already have enough computers in my life. I don’t want more of them.
I’ve literally never had any issue transacting with businesses through my phone. I can download the food delivery app and get dinner. I can download the transit app and get to where I’m going. What are these scams you speak of? Who are the dodgy people that Apple would allow through my hypothetical door?
Oh no, how terrible. My friends have to pay 15% commission (30% for my extremely wealthy friends who are not in need of sympathy) in order to cover API licenses[1], app store operating costs[2], card transaction costs, gift card costs (including a margin for the retailer), and by no means least, the attached goodwill of transacting via Apple where consumers have high confidence of refunds and easily cancelled subscriptions.
Of course, all of that covers the few friends who want to take my money. In reality, nearly all of my friends aren't selling anything, they just want to hang out in my pad. They value my company in other ways which the door doesn't concern itself with.
And if it turns out one of my friends wants to surveil my home and send the information onto a third party, the door makes sure I'm okay with that first. Thanks, door! While it's true that the door isn't perfect and can't spot every scam, I'm still overall more comfortable in my home.
And when I want to risk getting beaten up by the local mafia, I don't need to uninstall my door — I can just hop into my very comfortable patio shed any time I want. It doesn't even have a door at all, only some Windows.
--
[1] Epic sets their price for commercial use of their APIs. Why can't Apple? I've never understood why Epic are allowed to be such hypocrites here.
[2] Epic hasn't been able to turn a profit on their Epic Games Store with a 12% margin. And they're not even maintaining an entire ecosystem; just a file downloader and game launcher client.
you can make the citizens register their knifes after passing background check, then they will engrave your bar code id on the knife.... like they do to Uyghurs in China.
