Nobody's complaining about not having the apple distribution. They're complaining about the scareware popups, designed to hurt businesses that don't pay Apple protection money.
The allure of the Apple ecosystem is the whole "it just works". I would absolutely want to be warned (and have less technically minded family members warned) when they are being sent to some third-party payment system when they're used to the guaranteed safe environment that Apple provides.
Absolutely by Apple. Any subscription or charge against the users account all collects to the same place where it's always the User that has absolute control over their subscriptions. Want to cancel it? Easy, one place, one tap, done.
Doesn't Apple have a really simple Apple run payment portal where you can easily stop monthly charges? I don't even use Apple products myself but I'd want to be warned if I was about to lose that advantage, your average company are absolutely scum about monthly charges and cancellations.
But not paying with Apple is a risk. Handing out your payment info to any random website isn't the same risk profile as paying with my Apple account. The popups are fair given that this is a new interaction for users. As someone who has for over a decade given/recommended Mac/iPhones to tech illiterate people, I would be appalled if they didn't do this.
Developers forget that users also have a relationship with Apple.
“Scareware” is your editorial take, not an objective assessment, and using that kind of inflammatory language distracts from the fact that there is a real risk to users with online financial fraud as growth industry grossing billions of dollars a year.
> This app doesn't support the App Store's private and secure payment system.
> All purchases in this app will be managed by the developer "Example." You will no longer be transacting with Apple. Your App Store account, stored payment method, and related features, such as subscription management and refund requests, will not be available. Apple is not responsible for the privacy or security of transactions made with this developer and can't verify any pricing or promotions that are offered.
That really doesn’t seem unfair or scary. Part of the problem here is that we’re seeing the frame picked by someone vocal enough to come to a reporter’s attention and who stands to see considerable financial upside to cutting Apple out of his payment processing stack. That’s a legitimate goal, of course, but I think also clouds his ability to remember that while his motives may be pure, this is a system dialog which has to work for EVERYONE and there will definitely be sleazy companies trying to use the exact same feature, and to a first approximation the scammers will look just like his business from the perspective of a normal user.
You really think people won't blame Apple when Little Timmy spends $10k on diamonds on a mobile game they got from an alternate store and Apple won't refund it because, you know, not their store?
But, for little Timmy to buy diamonds in a mobile game from an alternate store he would have to install the alternate store then "borrow" his parent's credit card to register with the new store.
If "little" Timmy is pulling those sort of shenanigans then I suggest his parents have bigger problems and they probably won't blame Apple at all.
Now think about this scenario: the parent approves installation when asked because they didn’t realize it was an open ended financial commitment, and because like most people they associate app stores with curation which prevents abuse.
When they get a huge bill 6 months later, or after the game company is acquired, etc. the first thing they’re going to ask is why nobody warned them. That’s the point of these dialogs - to make the importance of the decision harder to miss.
Just wait until subscriptions can be bought for ~<30% cheaper elsewhere and see how much it matters to people. Apple will certainly get their chance to make a case for the feature.
Yes, nobody is arguing that some people will follow the cheapest option but this thread is about the guy claiming that it’s anticompetitive for users choosing his payment system to receive a confirmation that it’s not the Apple system they’re used to and has different policies.
It could very well be anticompetitive. Microsoft was was almost broken up over similar scareware tactics, you'd have to be blind to see Apple in a different position today.
Apple should be to blame. Even registered and paying iOS developers aren't allowed basic sideloading privileges you'd get for free on Android. This isn't about stopping Little Timmy, this is about annihilating all avenues of app distribution that doesn't come from Apple. If Apple took a softer stance on this earlier, then developers wouldn't be up-in-arms right now.
And mind you - nothing actually stops Apple from designing a safe and respectful sideloading system like MacOS. They actively choose to make iOS a diminished and neutered platform for profitability purposes. People will blame Apple, and they will be right - Apple brought this upon themselves. There is no one else to blame.
Because it's Apple's problem regardless. The iPhone is at-odds with it's identity of security and privacy even without the threat of sideloading. The App Store, a supposedly curated and well-reviewed platform, is dominated by pay-to-play games and ad-supported datamining apps. First-party Apple software like iMessage is perpetually vulnerable to escalation attacks due to the way it's designed. iCloud is basically a fancy sticker on state-owned and surveilled datacenters that Apple markets for an easy buck.
Now, they want to argue that sideloading is the straw that breaks the camel's back? Not Safari, which has enabled lord knows how many scams and privilege escalation attacks. Not the App Store, which disseminates exploitative and fraudulent content under the guise of simplicity and security. Not iMessage, the perennial attack-vector for escalated malware. Somehow it's the sideloaders who are the problem, for daring to suggest that the iPhone should rely on OS-level security rather than arbitrary (and often wrong) first-party curation.
Come on! It's not scareware! You have to admit these alternative app stores are going to be massively adopted by scammers and grifters (not saying all of the companies that will use these app stores are scammers, but all the scammers and grifters will use them).
Actual real human beings are having their lives turned upside down by things like this every fucking day. Can you try to have a little bit of compassion for people totally ignorant about computers and how much we ask them to do now? The world (and apple) doesn't revolve around developers!
What actual problem for _customers_ is being solved by alternative app stores? I don't know a single non-techie apple person who even knows what this means or has a single desire to sideload an app
This is not a real issue on Android, where this has been the status quo forever. Are there any reasons it would be different here or is it just FUD after all?
What!? Yes it is. I've seen it first hand on numerous kids phones, that "have a bad battery" or "stopped working".
Turns out downloading unlimited arbitrary binaries from in-app/in-youtube advertisements leads to a functionally bricked phone. I assume adults are too embarrassed, don't want to hand their phone over to someone and just buy a new one.
