I wish people using the Grandma argument for security would provide some statistics on how many grandmas got hacked and robbed from side loading android apps before trying to die on that hill for Apple.
Both my father and my mother got their banks ripped off by keyloggers on both an android handset and a windows computer separate occasions. They have been divorced for 30 years and do not even live near or speak to each other. The only thing that keeps them safe these days is iOS.
That sounds terrible indeed, I'm sorry to hear that, but anecdotes don't make a statistic.
For example my parents had always been tech illiterate android and windows users and never got hacked or robbed online.
>The only thing that keeps them safe these days is iOS.
BS. If a resourceful and motivated actor wants to phish your credentials they can do it even if you use iOS as well. They can call you and impersonate your bank. They don't need to get privilege escalation on your phone's OS.
Have you actually seen how a wide-open computing device looks like in regular person's hands?! Those IE instances full of "punch the monkey" toolbars were not just a meme, you know.
I moved my family from Windows to Linux and then iPads as soon as I could. I still encounter hacks (iOS's calendar for some reason is vulnerable to appointments from spam emails) but it's incomparable to how it was before.
> Wide open computing has also enabled generations
I totally agree with you. I love open computing! I grew up with it and it afforded me the chances in life that allowed me to get where I am today.
And I hate what Apple has done to it and how it treats us, developers. But exactly because we want open platforms in the future, we need to be on Apple's side on this one. I know it sounds counter-intuitive, but we need to give up short-term interests for the long-term gain.
Because it's clear we need both closed and open platforms on the market - each has its use cases and customers. But for that to exist - we need competition in the platform market (not only the platforms to be open to competition - this is an important aspect). And you know what the biggest competition killer is? Regulation. Even well-meaning regulation (which DMA isn't, btw). Regulation always favors incumbents. Regulation ensures startups have a harder job while big corporations simply add another lawyer on the payroll. Regulation is why Europe is so far behind in the high-tech field.
Anything EU throws at Apple - Apple will eventually (begrudgingly) implement. But they will still be market leader, they will still be big and arrogant and treating devs like crap. Meanwhile every rule will became another obstacle in what way of a new, better platform to appear. Regulations ossify markets and kill innovation. In the end we will be left with a few, "well" regulated, mammoths corporations.
Personally, I'd rather have a whole bunch of chaotic startups trying everything and fighting Apple every which way. The few negatives will lead to a net positive in the grand scheme of things.
>But exactly because we want open platforms in the future, we need to be on Apple's side on this one.
Tell me the name of your dispensary because I also want to buy what you've been smoking.
>But exactly because we want open platforms in the future, we need to be on Apple's side on this one.
It sounds counter intuitive because it totally is.
>Because it's clear we need both closed and open platforms on the market - each has its use cases and customers.
Why in the name of Christ do we need closed platforms? People(mostly Apple shills) keep harping on about how closed platform = security, but you can secure open platforms too if there's the will for that. Servers exposed to the web run almost exclusively open platforms(linux and FOSS SW stacks) and those who are run by competent companies and people are very secure. The "closed = more secure" argument is totally bullshit and you know it.
Do you think Windows would have been that much better if only Microsoft would have been allowed to decide what you can do with their OS and what apps you can sell/run? Honestly. The correct solution Microsoft implemented was to better secure Windows with firewall, antivirus, virtualization, core isolation, etc., not lock it down so they own it instead of you. It's not perfect, but better than being locked down. If Microsoft can secure Windows against malicious threats to protect its users then so can Apple secure iOS if they want to, instead of selling you the BS argument that the only way to secure it is to lock it down and give them exclusive control.
>Regulation ensures startups have a harder job while big corporations simply add another lawyer on the payroll.
Not this regulation. You are confused.
>Regulation is why Europe is so far behind in the high-tech field.
Super false again. Europe can't keep up with the US in this field because it's not a single 300 million people country with a single culture, language, defense and legal framework, but a collection of 26 countries with different languages, cultures, laws, militaries and spending habits, each doing their own thing, so scaling up a consumer product of one country across that many members is much more difficult to gain escape velocity and become a global leader than it is in the US. And this is after we gloss over the fact that the US is the No. 1 world economy, owns the money printer to the world reserve currency being able to dump trillion in a sector, and is the sole WW1 and WW2 victor and their tech supremacy in SV is an extension of their investments in WW2 tech that continued to bore fruit decades alter and keep them No. 1 while Europe was bombed to shit. This is why the US rules tech, not because EU has some more regulations.
>Personally, I'd rather have a whole bunch of chaotic startups trying everything and fighting Apple every which way.
Start-ups have absolutely no chance against Apple in the smartphone space anyway (how many people do you know who will buy a phone today, made by a start-up, that can't run iOS nor Android?), but this regulation will help a little.
And these regulations aren't in palce to create startups to compete with Appel, but to prevent startups ad iOS developers being abused by Apple's ban hammer. Apple won't allow your app on their store? No problem, just distribute it on another store. Why does this seem bad to you? Why should Appel decide what you can run on the device you bought and own?
> Why in the name of Christ do we need closed platforms?
Is it hard for you to accept the fact that other people make different choices? The market has spoken already and Apples success indicates that yes, people do want closed platforms as well.
Pretending iOS's security is not the best on the market right now is simply being in denial.
But I am not arguing for closed solutions. I am arguing for an ecosystem with both closed and open solutions.
> Europe can't keep up with the US in this field because
Europe was keeping up with USA just fine until about 15 years ago. So the problem can't be one of the reasons you listed (certainly not the ancient history of the WW2), those existed before as well. What changed lately was the onerous amount of regulation being added and a strong left turn in economic policy. Together they brought the unfolding disaster we are witnessing today.
I am willing to bet you've never build a startup in your life. Do that please and then come back and tell me which is worse: regulation or big competition.
> Why should Appel decide what you can run on the device you bought and own?
Because they aren't selling you a device. They are selling you access to their platform. Interfering with how they build and run that platform will just ensure we'll get fewer platforms in the future. You get either competition or regulation - the later logically diminishes the first.
>Europe was keeping up with USA just fine until about 15 years ago.
Keeping up how? let's go back 15 years ago: All the top GPUs were American, all the top CPUs were American, all the top SW companies were American, all the successful mobile platforms were American(Nokia was dying), all the top social media platforms were American, all the top PC manufacturers were American(and Chinese), all top semiconductor makers were American(and Asian), all the top financial institutions and VC funds were American(coincidence that money correlates with top tech?). etc
Where was Europe keeping up exactly? Oh yea, we had one Swedish music service whoopdie-doo.
>So the problem can't be one of the reasons you listed
Really? You don't think having the word's reserve money printer that fuels the stronger VC sector in the world that's absent in the EU, doesn't count? Or that Europe has 26 different markets with 26 deferent legal systems and languages and consumer spending habits? You think all those didn't matter when scaling up a start-up across the continent? You really are clueless.
> What changed lately was the onerous amount of regulation being added and a strong left turn in economic policy. Together they brought the unfolding disaster we are witnessing today.
Please tell me exactly which specific EU regulations of the past 15 years are preventing you from scaling a successful EU start-up? Is it the regulations like you say, or is it the lack of VC funding like I said?
>Because they aren't selling you a device. They are selling you access to their platform.
Where? If I go in the shops, I see iPhones for sale, not subscription to the iPhone service.
I live in EU and I've been running software startups for over 20 years now, while doing angel/seed-investments on the side. Never encountered any issues from lack of funding or fragmented markets. Tons of problems from regulations though. Labor regs are the most onerous, but recent high-tech ones come close, even if I haven't reach the growth stage to be heavily impacted yet.
> Please tell me exactly which specific EU regulations
Again, have you ever built anything?! Regulations break startups in other ways, not only directly. Running a startup is like running on a track. Regulations are like potholes: they can break your legs if you fall in one, but even if you are agile and maneuver around them they will slow you down and tire you out until you simply give up.
It is a statistic, why else do you think iOS is as locked down as it is, and Android is doing the same thing? You are assuming competence where there is none. Do you honestly think the average person knows how to use a smartphone? That they will take time out of their day to know what the things they are pressing are actually doing?
I'm asking you to prove the statistics of people being hacked in larger numbers because of open handsets, not that theoretically locked down ones seem more secure.
the universe is a "security shithole" unless one can competently protect oneself or have a competent protector/s do it for them.
i certainly don't feel like Apple nor Alphabet is in any vested position to protect me any more competently than i would at least want to have the option to try do for myself. how this post even otherwise tumbled down the 'iPhone versus Droid' bottomless pit is missing that point entirely.
Apple absolutely has an incentive to protect their customers. There’s a reason Android has the horrible reputation it does now, and it’s because Google didn’t give a fuck.
I really dislike the anecdotes don't make a statistic line. As an actual qualified mathematician it pisses me off that my field is used in vain to discard experience.
I mean would you ok if I waltzed into the middle of a town square and shot a load of people and said "well statistically you'll all be fine"?
No I'm sure you wouldn't. It is not ok that anyone gets shot or their system ripped off with a keylogger. Not one! And that means there needs to be technical measures which prevent it. If your line of thinking was a valid approach, we wouldn't have locks.
