> You cannot install apps on... a phone that you own without paying Apple
THIS is the principal issue. I cannot indeed install what I want on a device that I own. This is absolutely ridiculous.
THIS is the principal issue. I cannot indeed install what I want on a device that I own. This is absolutely ridiculous.
The problem is what you are calling a "flaw" is a feature to others. If you don't like that "feature", others are saying you should leave the ecosystem rather than lobby Apple to "fix" it.
>For the second one, this doesn't account for tens of great apps we miss out on because they just won't make it on AppStore's rules.
It's acceptable collateral damage, and if those apps are truly great then someone people will (and have) switch to another platform. Just like if I get an XBox I can't play Playstation games.
IMO, if this was truly a great issue, people wouldn't choose iPhones. If you really care about being able to install software on your device, then don't buy an iPhone. It's even easier to make this decision because there is very few iPhone exclusive applications that do not have alternatives on Android. To me however, it comes across as the same lip service Linux gets where for users all these "power features" are important, but everyone just buys a macbook instead.
As for lack of sideloading being a feature - lack of features is only a feature, when those features can get in the way. The ability to opt into sideloading - as it's done on Android and Win10 - is not intrusive for those users who choose to not enable it. So, no, this can't really be sold under the guise of caring about the users. It's a policy that is in place to protect Apple's interests, and benefits no-one else.
There's a weird dichotomy that comes up in those kinds of arguments, where we simultaneously assume that people are so smart they'll know exactly what phone ecosystem they're opting into and what the consequences are, but also so stupid that they can't be taught to make informed decisions about which app stores to use.
Not to mention that a giant chunk of Apple's user retention policy is to make it as difficult and annoying to get out of their ecosystem as possible, which (imo) makes the "users would just switch if they were unhappy" argument really disingenuous. Apple is now tying credit cards to their phones. You're really going to get rid of your credit card because you're unhappy with the app selection on your phone?
That kind of user lock-in can't be separated from their efforts to force developers to use Apple payments for recurring subscriptions -- it's not just about the 30% revenue. It's also a nice way to make sure that switching from iOS to Android means literally all of your digital subscriptions break, and that it's impossible for you to cancel them or migrate them without going through Apple.
Monopoly does not mean “popular product” Apple isn’t even market leading, let alone dominant, and even if your dominant in a market you still might not have a monopoly.
We're a long way from a flagship class phone that you can install distros as freely as you can on a PC. I'm well aware of the Pine Phone and Librem, but they're both rather slow compared to a 2019 or 2020 smartphone.
It's a pain. This is not a solution for the average user. I can't even use Uber, for example.
I loved using lineageos but still had a back up iPhone for some stuff. Stuff was constantly breaking.
I've since gone back to using just the iPhone.
I’ve been seriously looking at this: https://www.pine64.org/pinephone/
If we want an open ecosystem, we need to support it.
iPhones have 50% of the market in the US where I do business. Either I have to go through their review process or register for the Enterprise app development program. All for phones that they already made money on when they sold it to us.
Maybe another option for iPhone users is to form a giant co-op corporation, get a D&B number, "hire" everybody who wants custom apps as "employees" and start our own internal app store... it'll cost us $299 per year.
Anyone interested?