This seem indefensible at first blush. The app has been available as-is for years, so if the explanation given him is correct, it's a really bad look for Apple.
It's a computer, and the most popular computer in the US. It's also the only computer a lot of people own.
It's not a dedicated gaming device - people use iPhone to call, edit media, find jobs, pay for things, calculate, date, do email. It's a computer. Arguments like "but you can't install on a Nintendo" aren't equivalent. Nintendo makes one of a dozen different game platforms, all of which have wide penetration and lots of alternatives. And it's just for games. This is closer to "you can't repair your tractor", which is also an issue for farmers.
Computers, especially those with massive market share, should be open to 3rd party installs.
It's an expensive device and it got to where it is because of a trillion dollar company backing it. You can't compete with that.
You own an iPhone and you're happy installing just from Apple? That's fine. But there are a lot more people in this world that will benefit from open computing. Apple can still have their App Store, charge for distribution, and will still be making bank.
Computing on computers should be free and open.
If we let this slide, we'll one day own nothing. Stallman was right about everything.
But I am of the firm opinion that iOS devices and Android devices are not interchangeable even if you can do many of the same things on both and many apps are available on both platforms.
Just because a hatchback, a big rig and a personal airplane all get you from A to B while seated and all have air conditioning and entertainment systems does not make them fungible.
First can be sidestepped by not mentioning the trademarks of the platform holder anywhere.
The second can be side stepped through reverse engineering.
Third can eventually be hacked out of the device (like the recent encryption key reveal on Intel CPU's) and was not applicable to older generations.
Proof of 1 and 2 is the existence of new games developed for ancient consoles.
https://www.syfy.com/syfywire/the-unlikely-but-very-real-res...
“Most console games have to be signed with a secret key designed by the console maker or the game will not load on the console. There are several methods to get unsigned code to execute which include software exploits, the use of a modchip, a technique known as the swap trick or running a softmod.”
I don’t see how iOS is different here.
I did not know about that one but I did know of AppValey and others that work based on enterprise certificates. I am not sure what prevents Epic from using this method to create an alternative store or why Apple does not claim that if you want you can have alternative stores on iOS therefore there is no antithrust issue.
Of course AppValey and the like require installing a root certificate.
Also, none of this allows you to unlock the bootloader.
Why can’t users make that decision for themselves? Granted, many people choose to buy Apple devices because they do not desire general computing devices and instead desire appliances.
But giving up that control erodes ownership itself. A device not fully controlled by you is not fully owned by you. You may own a license to use it for a limited time. But people do not buy hardware devices with the expectation of actually only buying a license to use them.
Your reference to "general computing device" here is a concept that a particular market identifies with (you being in that market). Attached to it is some kind of concept of free/open. Apple will tell you their devices are general computing devices. I am currently playing around with lidar sensors in an iPhone 12 pro by writing code and pushing it onto my device. The functionality I can build is pretty arbitrary and I would call it general computing. I would agree with Apple.
All of this is not applicable to other platforms (maybe to consoles but I already commented about them on this thread).
Apple has no obligation to make this process easy or even possible, and if the users still buy their products, they clearly don't care enough about these restrictions.
The only way to prevent them is by abolishing their property and putting them in the public domain.
I own a PC I buy preinstalled with Windows because I can replace Windows with something else. As long as I can find spare parts I can make it work. Windows is just a part.
I do not fully own a device with a locked bootloader that can not be unlocked because once the vendor no longer provides updates I can not replace the broken part (software). The vendor maintains a degree of ownership over a device I purchased (applicable to phones, cars, tractors, etc.).
A capitalist monopoly is not communism. It is not what I said. I said the relationship between users and corporations (Apple, Google, Facebook, Netflix, MS, Tesla, John Deere, etc.) has a degree of resemblance to the relationship between citizens and the state in comunist regimes.
Why? If you don't like it, don't buy their product. I think iPhone is shit because of this, and other tactics to lock the user in, so I don't use it and wouldn't recommend it to anybody.
It's easy to (say) find the phone with the best camera, but you never know you need freedom until it's too late.
But in reality, most people know. It's just that they tell themselves they won't ever want to do a thing until they kinda do and at that point they just bought the wrong product for that purpose.
Warning: Apple solely controls what apps you can run on this device
We're right in the middle of shift of perspective where smart-phones stop being just cellphones with some extra features but actually peoples main access to general computing.
But to many they still are just "phones", and tech companies are taking advantage of this situation to shape the mentality around them in a different way than with desktop computing. This is their right, although it's obviously evil.
It's the media (tech magazines, youtube channels, etc.) that should be clearing up these misconceptions, but the sad reality is, people don't care. If I try explaining to a non-IT friend why installing any random software is essential, they look at me like I'm wearing a tin foil hat. People don't understand how quickly computation is turning into an important aspect of freedom.