Software Devolution in the Hands of Apple(michal.sapka.me)
michal.sapka.me
Software Devolution in the Hands of Apple
https://michal.sapka.me/blog/2024/apple-dma/
30 comments
Since Linux is a kernel, and Android runs off the Linux kernel, I am confused by that "Wake me up when..." final sentence. I know he probably means desktop Debian on a Pixel phone but it's very poor phrasing.
I've read (don't remember where) that Android's kernel barely resembles upstream Linux.
A little more about UBports...
It's not like you can use /dev/video to use the video camera on a Linuxified phone. Instead, the system is a Debian wrapper around Android, and Android is used to get access to the proprietary device drivers. Those capabilities are then exposed to the Qt-based SDK.
So, to take a picture with the camera every few minutes, instead of running a command on a cron job I had to write a whole [GUI app][1]. Either I manually start the app using the phone's touchscreen, or I think I can launch it in dev mode remotely using tools on my laptop, but the phone still has to be manually unlocked.
To top it all off, there's a memory leak in some camera-related Android service, so the app crashes after a few hours. The bug is allegedly in the Android code, so the UBports maintainers can't do much about it (maybe backport a patch onto the source from which the Android base image is built? Who has time for that?).
For all I know, it's a good phone, but for my hacking use case it's less than ideal.
Still, any old phone camera is way better than the webcams I have lying around.
[1]: https://github.com/dgoffredo/ubuntu-touch-intervalometer
A little more about UBports...
It's not like you can use /dev/video to use the video camera on a Linuxified phone. Instead, the system is a Debian wrapper around Android, and Android is used to get access to the proprietary device drivers. Those capabilities are then exposed to the Qt-based SDK.
So, to take a picture with the camera every few minutes, instead of running a command on a cron job I had to write a whole [GUI app][1]. Either I manually start the app using the phone's touchscreen, or I think I can launch it in dev mode remotely using tools on my laptop, but the phone still has to be manually unlocked.
To top it all off, there's a memory leak in some camera-related Android service, so the app crashes after a few hours. The bug is allegedly in the Android code, so the UBports maintainers can't do much about it (maybe backport a patch onto the source from which the Android base image is built? Who has time for that?).
For all I know, it's a good phone, but for my hacking use case it's less than ideal.
Still, any old phone camera is way better than the webcams I have lying around.
[1]: https://github.com/dgoffredo/ubuntu-touch-intervalometer
In earlier coverage, I missed the $1 million letter of credit required. And that the app has to be exactly the same. Sigh. What a shame.
What's the big deal? Don't sell it on Apple's store.
If its not a big deal why doesn't apple just remove that requirement?
Apple's concerned that developers will use the Apple App Store as simple lead gen for the "real" app in 3rd party store. App quality in Apple's store would fall which would be bad for Apple's store.
So publish the same app in both stores or don't publish in our store.
Seems reasonable to me.
So publish the same app in both stores or don't publish in our store.
Seems reasonable to me.
The entire point of alternative app stores is to allow more features than Apple’s. If large Apps have to give up on adding new features for their alt store versions to avoid losing their existing business on Apple’s store then how are Alt stores supposed to compete? The only reason this strategy works for Apple is because they have a dominant position already. This is textbook anticompetitive behavior.
Yes and third party app stores are happening.
What's more likely to happen, is that those big apps will simply start to split into two apps. The basic one will remain at feature parity on both stores. Then app mfg will then make a new "Super" or "2.0" app that they'll launch only on the third party store. That'll probably satisfy Apple.
Stores choose what and what not to sell all the time. It's no more anticompetitive than LHVM stores choosing not to sell canned soup or Mercedes choosing to not sell Ford.
What's more likely to happen, is that those big apps will simply start to split into two apps. The basic one will remain at feature parity on both stores. Then app mfg will then make a new "Super" or "2.0" app that they'll launch only on the third party store. That'll probably satisfy Apple.
Stores choose what and what not to sell all the time. It's no more anticompetitive than LHVM stores choosing not to sell canned soup or Mercedes choosing to not sell Ford.
> It's no more anticompetitive than LHVM stores choosing not to sell canned soup or Mercedes choosing to not sell Ford.
Neither of those companies are monopolies and neither of them forbid brands they stock from selling different versions of those products at different stores.
Neither of those companies are monopolies and neither of them forbid brands they stock from selling different versions of those products at different stores.
If that really is Apple's worry, they clearly have no confidence in the App Store providing the developers with reasonable value. There they are, with their store being the only one preinstalled on iPhones and with the most recognizable brand in the space, and they think that developers would not publish real apps on their store? That's pretty embarrassing!
If they really are providing so little value, maybe they could invest in making their platform less shitty or offer better terms? Like, you know, compete.
If they really are providing so little value, maybe they could invest in making their platform less shitty or offer better terms? Like, you know, compete.
The App store being the only way to install software on iOS is like the car dealership you bought your car from being the only place to get an oil change. It’s purely to prop up a bad product by bundling it with a good product.
I was momentarily confused by the mismatch between the title and the article. The author means "de-evolution" (going backwards with respect to progress) not "devolution" (more power to the people).
devolution (n) - (word sense #2) retrograde evolution, degeneration (https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/devolution)
de-evolution & deevolution aren't words https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/de-evolution
de-evolution & deevolution aren't words https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/de-evolution
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morphological_derivation
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/de-
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/de-
Sure, but it's one of English's specific exceptions to the rule. De-evolution should be spelled with one e, in-flammable actually means flammable, etc
Apple can get away with this because it doesn't (directly) affect their users, only the developers.
Even with all the racketeering, the developers don't really have a choice; choosing to leave the Apple platform and their racketeering ring means losing out on a huge user base and (potential) profits.
At this stage it would take a "union" of sorts, a bunch of developers of big/popular apps and services to collectively boycott Apple in order for them to loosen their iron grip, but that will never happen because of the aforementioned reasons.
Even with all the racketeering, the developers don't really have a choice; choosing to leave the Apple platform and their racketeering ring means losing out on a huge user base and (potential) profits.
At this stage it would take a "union" of sorts, a bunch of developers of big/popular apps and services to collectively boycott Apple in order for them to loosen their iron grip, but that will never happen because of the aforementioned reasons.
Apple "gets away with it" because it is what users prefer.
These users are the same folks who prefer and pay a premium for Apple technology.
If the market had a better product Apple's users would flock to it.
But the market doesn't. And we're left well meaning backseat drivers who insist on "fixing things".
These users are the same folks who prefer and pay a premium for Apple technology.
If the market had a better product Apple's users would flock to it.
But the market doesn't. And we're left well meaning backseat drivers who insist on "fixing things".
> These users are the same folks who prefer and pay a premium for Apple technology.
Or those who are mobbed into Apple products.
Or those who are mobbed into Apple products.
How do you know users would prefer the Apple store to a third party iOS store if no other stores on iOS exist?
Because there are phones for sale with more open and/or 3rd party stores are available. And most consumers don't buy those phones. So, said another way, phones with that feature have a competitive advantage, right?
But the consumer doesn't care. Consumers instead are choosing phones based on other features.
Now, what happens on iOS once the 3rd party stores get forced in? Who knows. It'll be fun to watch. Generally, consumers probably won't give a shit. After all, if they valued this feature, they'd purchase a phone with it.
The people who do care generally aren't consumers. It remains to be seen they can can shift consumer behavior.
That said, I think new genre's of apps might be able to provoke a change. Stuff like porn, hacker apps, apps that appeal to niche communities, all that Apple would never allow...If one of those apps becomes super popular, then the 3rd party stores will become interesting.
But the consumer doesn't care. Consumers instead are choosing phones based on other features.
Now, what happens on iOS once the 3rd party stores get forced in? Who knows. It'll be fun to watch. Generally, consumers probably won't give a shit. After all, if they valued this feature, they'd purchase a phone with it.
The people who do care generally aren't consumers. It remains to be seen they can can shift consumer behavior.
That said, I think new genre's of apps might be able to provoke a change. Stuff like porn, hacker apps, apps that appeal to niche communities, all that Apple would never allow...If one of those apps becomes super popular, then the 3rd party stores will become interesting.
How do you know people wouldn't buy more iPhones if there were more App stores on it?
Apple wants to sell more phones, sure -- but not at the expense of their values or brand.
So, say we get an amazing third party store. And its loaded with world class apps like "AR Butt Plug", "Is that a Jew?" and "SNES9X". Well, new customers might be drawn to Apple's ecosystem that previous weren't customers.
But those are customers and use cases that Apple probably doesn't want.
So, say we get an amazing third party store. And its loaded with world class apps like "AR Butt Plug", "Is that a Jew?" and "SNES9X". Well, new customers might be drawn to Apple's ecosystem that previous weren't customers.
But those are customers and use cases that Apple probably doesn't want.
Why do you use those inflammatory examples and not, say, the following:
So, say we get an amazing third party store named F-Ios which is loaded with world class free software like Fennec (non-mozilla Firefox build), TermIos (Termux on Android) and IosPipe (Newpipe on Android). Well, new customers might be drawn to Apple's ecosystem that previous weren't customers.
Imagine the possibilities offered by adding an iOS version of the Android F-Droid repo. That would draw customers which thus far shun Apple like the plague.
> But those are customers and use cases that Apple probably doesn't want.
Unfortunately you're most likely right here in that Apple does not want to give its customers the freedom to choose to evade its toll booths by choosing free software - they want to remain in control.
So, say we get an amazing third party store named F-Ios which is loaded with world class free software like Fennec (non-mozilla Firefox build), TermIos (Termux on Android) and IosPipe (Newpipe on Android). Well, new customers might be drawn to Apple's ecosystem that previous weren't customers.
Imagine the possibilities offered by adding an iOS version of the Android F-Droid repo. That would draw customers which thus far shun Apple like the plague.
> But those are customers and use cases that Apple probably doesn't want.
Unfortunately you're most likely right here in that Apple does not want to give its customers the freedom to choose to evade its toll booths by choosing free software - they want to remain in control.
> Unfortunately you're most likely right here in that Apple does not want to give its customers the freedom to choose to evade its toll booths by choosing free software - they want to remain in control.
Yup. Apple is closed and for profit.
This will eventually even out. Look at the gains of Linux desktop. Once the curve of innovation flattened, open source caught up and now delivers I think a superior product to both Apple and Microsoft.
It took 10 years. But it's happening and I think the future looks bright.
I bet we're about 5-10 years away from a viable competitor in the phone space showing up.
Yup. Apple is closed and for profit.
This will eventually even out. Look at the gains of Linux desktop. Once the curve of innovation flattened, open source caught up and now delivers I think a superior product to both Apple and Microsoft.
It took 10 years. But it's happening and I think the future looks bright.
I bet we're about 5-10 years away from a viable competitor in the phone space showing up.
Maybe, maybe not. This still does not explain why you chose to use such an inflammatory example in what seems to be a defence for Apple's stance regarding third-party 'app stores' while it has been clear from the get-go that Apple wants to keep control over the distribution channels to keep up its profit margins.
you claimed apple’s customers dont want an alternative app store. I asked you how you could possibly know that if none exist. You responded by saying that actually is just APPLE that doesnt want alternative app stores. Do you take back your earlier claim that Apple’s CUSTOMERS dont care about having alternative app stores?
>the developers don't really have a choice; choosing to leave the Apple platform
They do have a choice. Developing and supporting an iOS app will take $x amount of money and will have a potential return on investment of $y. If the return on investment is not high enough developers have no reason to release or update an iOS app and should focus on other development, working on something else that will have a greater return.
They do have a choice. Developing and supporting an iOS app will take $x amount of money and will have a potential return on investment of $y. If the return on investment is not high enough developers have no reason to release or update an iOS app and should focus on other development, working on something else that will have a greater return.
If all large third party app developers boycotted the App Store and set up a successful alternative and then forbade Apps on their store from have any additional functionality when distributed through Apple’s store, the Apple fanboys would decry this as anticompetitive and unfair. Which is precisely why those developers should do that.
[deleted]
Depends on the specifics of "you," "nothing," and "anything."
> Wake me up when Linux is ready for everyday phone use, because Google is a poor alternative.
I have UBports (i.e. Ubuntu Touch) installed on an old Pixel for use as a remotely controlled camera, but I don't use it as a daily driver. It's a thick wrapper around Android, though. There's no getting around proprietary hardware, firmware, and drivers.