a) their updates require consent
b) their telemetry is less invasive than Google's or Microsoft's and at least they explain what they're collecting in most of their apps and allow one to turn off some things
c) they do offer power user options such as allowing kexts like the one from Little Snitch. https://www.obdev.at/support/littlesnitch/245913651253917
d) generally add functionality
?
Apple won't approve software that uses non-apple-approved services, like payment providers. Apple won't approve software that dares to inform users of these limitations. Apple won't approve third party browsers. Apple demands payment in order for them to approve software. Etc.
Apple apparently has been silently and without permission or an off switch sending the name of the developer of literally every app you launch to Apple. This is far more invasive than anything I've heard of Google or Microsoft doing - not that I'm a fan of their telemetry either. Microsoft in particular also gives you tools to examine what they're sending in detail: https://www.howtogeek.com/348699/how-to-see-what-data-window...
On Apple devices which allow power user options (the minority of devices), they are still limited. For example Apple was (is?) making their own traffic bypass Little Snitch.
Apple generally seems to remove functionality in the name of "design" and "safety" as far as I can see... I'm not sure how you think they're generally adding functionality.
It's not like Apple forced you to buy a Mac or an iPhone. If anything you have to go out of your way to get one, because you see some appeal in them - as otherwise they're more expensive, with limited model choice, less bang for the buck, and a minority market share wise compared to most PC/Android stuff.
So, perhaps those buying them know what they're doing? Walled garden (aka "curation") for many is part of the appeal.
Who decides?
iDevices always worked like you're describing. You can get a dev cert and install whatever you like, but these devices are not general computing devices. They're a different kind of device for those that don't want to admin their phone and instead want Apple to take care of it.
You obviously didn't even read my link because there it says exactly how Apple offers a power user option which allows an older version of Little Snitch to capture that traffic.
I have a Windows machine and I've looked at how they behaved with their telemetry from the beginning. They were so secretive and malicious that it beggars belief. An EU government even had to reverse engineer their telemetry communication because they wouldn't say what's in it. You're coming after the dust has settled and draw conclusions from there.
Google... where to even begin. What a complete waste of time this was.
You mean $buy$ a dev cert, yearly.
> They're a different kind of device for those that don't want to admin their phone and instead want Apple to take care of it.
And if you want both, FUCK yourself right ?
I, a person with a modest net worth, am picking on trillion dollar Apple? That's so backwards it's funny.
This is a company that erodes computing freedom and ownership. They've co-opted the commons, and they built it all on the back of open source. And I'm picking on them?
Apple fans will say that Apple created billions of dollars of commerce opportunity. But it would have happened anyway without Apple.
We'd be in a better world if we had an open app standard that worked cross-device and consumers had choice in distribution channels.
We don't need to be "protected" by a company or big brother. Especially if such protection is just a cover story for controlling commerce.
And I do feel that we should focus on the biggest offenders (i.e. Google and Facebook) first, because if there's a precedent the others will get the message quite fast.
Apple is the worst of the lot, by far the most culpable, as they're directly attacking the notion of ownership and computing freedom. They're their own government that has somehow snuck under the radar of the DOJ. They behave like the mafia and offer "protection".
Google is next for the harm they've done to the web. I think we can agree how bad they've bloodied it up.
How can you put Facebook ahead of Apple? They're creepy and invasive, but they're not redefining what we can and cannot do, and they're the easiest to remove from our daily lives and industry.
I want to distribute software and I still have to pay the Apple tax and jump through their hoops, and I'm left without a relationship with my customers. On the other side of the coin, as an owner I can't repair my device or run my own software. Facebook has little impact on my life, meanwhile Apple is a gravitational distortion in our industry.
You complaining about paying 99 bucks per year and comparing it with the above is seriously mind-bending. No wonder our privacy's so fucked...
Apple is just as evil in tracking and even more evil in taking freedom away.
I didn't say Google was blameless. Google is horrifically evil. You're just mad I'm also implicating Apple.
You love Apple. And you love it enough to overlook the incredible harm they're doing.
Stop loving a company that doesn't give a shit about anything but profit. The feelings and pleasure you derive is just Apple fitting to the gradient slopes of profit maximization within the market they've carved out. It's engineered, and you're falling for it.
Use your device for what it is, and be happy in the capabilities it gives you, but be a good citizen to your fellow persons. Not a company. Don't overlook their grievances. Hope for a better, more equitable tomorrow so that everyone in our industry can thrive and can do so without being extractive.
Edit: Downvotes from Apple fans making it further in the thread than those that overwhelmingly agree with my parent comments.
Downvotes from those that disagree with "Hope for a better, more equitable tomorrow so that everyone in our industry can thrive and can do so without being extractive."
Astonishing.
The argument is not “did Apple create a walled garden and rule it like the actual Chinese Communist Party” because yes it did. The question is, are they alone in doing it, or just successful?
I think the latter, you think the former it seems.
Also don't pretend to know what people feel just because they buy products from a company. It's ridiculous how you're claiming what I love when you don't even know me.
We should do the same to Apple, Google, and the others. It clearly doesn't erode stock value.
I wish people stopped buying phones with non-removable battery. I sure as hell will not buy a phone if I cannot replace its battery. On the other hand, I think it makes the device thinner, and weighs less, so some people prefers that over being able to replace the battery. Not sure what to do here than to accept their preference.
Key word is repairability here, not necessarily user swapable. You can go buy chunky construction worker edition if you want all the swapabillity if you want to.
How are they worse than Microsoft?
That is exactly the point of permissive open source licenses. Freelancers and commercial companies can build stuff on top of it that makes them money and brings real benefits to paying users.
Windows, MacOS, and iOS/Android would all be stinking piles of hot garbage if it weren't for open source, but then again Linux or the *BSD operating systems wouldn't be where they are today without contributions from companies acting to make a profit.
The Linux and *BSD communities wouldn't be where they are today without those contributions, no. But they would be somewhere else. Not as far down the road, but down a different road; who's to say that would've been worse?
The open source part doesn't change anything. Windows has so many hooks that 1984 (the book, not the year) is now a reality in 2020 with DLP software watching employees. Apple's walled garden is not there to encourage growth inside the walls but to extract profit from those that flourish inside of it. And linux is so fragmented because everyone has a great new idea which requires a new X where X is a UI, library, window manager, etc.
Interesting that back in 1980's the Apple II line was frankly pretty darn well open. Sure Apple had copyrights on the assembly, but if you looked at the magazines at the time there were lots of articles giving annotated disassembly of Apple's object code. And yet, Apple sold a bunch of computers anyway. Wow. Fucking genius.
Sure Apple is fighting the Good Fight with privacy (and I've yet to see that it's anything different than pure marketing). But I ask why should Apple need to market "privacy first" when they can just open up their software and show us directly? Let's start by open sourcing any telemetry they send back to the mothership. Is that reasonable perhaps?
Sure DOS was akin to open source and formed the basis of Windows way back when but the decades of development have left little left (except what exists to support backwards compatability)
So i can either install any app i want into my factory installed spyware ridden forced updating android phone and windows desktop machine, or give up the ability to control what software I can install my machine in order to gain privacy by switching to apple.
We want both damn it.
And in my case I'll begrudgingly take windows and android over apple, but I don't like it.
But it's easier to just think of iThings as appliances with lots of cool use cases instead of general computing machines.
Whenever I hear all this lamenting about Apple this, Microsoft that, Google rablerablerable ... we have been told about all of this sine at least 1989! I'm full-time, work and private, on a Free desktop OS since 10 years +. Just put your money and effort into the Free alternative.
It still can't make phone calls without cycling airplane mode between calls.
The one before that would crash if I paired a bluetooth device while connected to one already.
Both of them bootloop at the power off battery charge screen, which basically means i couldn't turn my phone on while plugged in, and unless its a fast charger, the act of repeatedly booting up keeping the phone screen on ends up draining power faster then it can charge.
So. Tell me again about these free and open options.
It is interesting how it works for some people, and for other people their device literally explodes.
There are occasional issues, but nothing showstopping for me.
On the whole I have been very happy with LineageOS as it has allowed me to continue to use my phone for years longer than I would have with the simply bad manufacturer updates that almost completely filled the internal disk space and stopped updating something like 2015 with Android 5. Less unnecessary expense, less eWaste, thumbs up.
For me, I would definitely go with a phone manufacturer that supports rooting their device and put LineageOS on it if I think I need it. I may not install it, but the option for the future is the main thing.
Wasn't the problem originaly that Android phones didn't have any updates?
However, that's still not something being common among Android phones; if the original poster pointed out specific vendors, that would be OK. But saying that it is a common trait shared by all Androids is incorrect.