I guess we need a congressional bill that lets people sideload apps on their phone. It seems ridiculous to have to get to that level but apparently that’s the only way. We have some progress now on right to repair. Next up, right to use.
If there were no legal restrictions with what you're doing with you're phone, Apple would have a very hard time preventing you from doing what you want. Anyone could buy an exploit for iOS for a million and sell unlocks for 50$.
There is force and coercion involved, so a governmental intervention is much more necessary.
It would also make it way easier to transfer your apps from platform to platform and to switch OSes.
No. https://www.wired.com/2010/07/feds-ok-iphone-jailbreaking/
They simply make it technically infeasible to jailbreak since jailbreaks run untrusted code that bypasses security restrictions (eg. adware that survives resets).
You wouldn't need to send your phone or anything, you can do fully remote jailbreak from a web browser with the right exploits.
You'd be surprised how popular pay-to-jailbreak shops are/were in places where this isn't enforced. You go there and the guy jailbreak your phone in front of you then hands it back to you. There's absolutely a market
Everyone is paying a lot of money for a system they basically own nothing about. You keep paying, for apps, for hardware, that’s forever tied up to the whims of that platform’s owner (not you).
Not in favour of more laws, but forcing the hands of these platforms so they provide more control to their customers is not a bad thing.
At the moment none of them have any incentive to do it.
What are the costs? I can buy an iPhone or an Android phone and switch pretty easily can’t I?
> Not in favour of more laws, but forcing the hands of these platforms so they provide more control to their customers is not a bad thing.
Maybe more control isn’t a good thing? But even so aren’t there phones in the market they cater to those who want more control.
Software would need to be repurchased if it's even available on the other platform. Maybe you could but I know I couldn't easily or cheaply switch.
I could easily switch. I guess maybe we should all make sure we buy software that is device independent or something too.
If you want regulation, then I think thats a good starting point. Software doesn’t have to be made for every device, but if you buy it for one you buy it for all.
Or we can just let things go too. Seems to be working mostly fine.
Should they be allowed to decide to buy a device whose manufacturer maintains a sole-source app retailer?
They discover it later, when they ask some more expert friend "can you install me an app to do so, like the one you have on your phone", and you have to explain that no, you can't because Apple didn't approve it for the store. And then they understand that they made a bad choice, but it's too late.
Or when someone goes to you asking for an iOS app and you have to explain that putting it on the store (the only way they can install it permanently, even if they need it only on one phone) they will have to spend a lot of money. While with Android you just give them the .apk and you are done. And most of the time these customer will buy Android phones because it's cheaper to buy a new phone than get the app on the store.
My toaster can't run any software at all.
Most people will care about their inability to run their own software on their iPhone about as much as they care about running it on their toaster, or car, or desk. Most people are not naturally hackers or tinkerers.
>Or when someone goes to you asking for an iOS app and
If someone is going to you asking for an app that you compiled yourself, let alone one that you programmed yourself, they're such a statistical anomaly it isn't funny.
> If someone is going to you asking for an app that you compiled yourself, let alone one that you programmed yourself, they're such a statistical anomaly it isn't funny.
Yes, that could be the case, but it's more common with apps like emulators of old console, that on iOS are not approved, or to listen to music from YouTube in background and without ads, or a file manager to copy stuff from/to a removable device, and so on.
There is also the case of people that asks me for apps for their business and I have to say, sorry for iOS I cannot do so because Apple forbids that. You would better buy a cheap 200$ phone/tablet only for that application, because getting it approved by Apple and putting it on the store will cost you more.
And all I even want to do is have a parametric equalizer so PowerBeats sound decent with Apple Music while I run…
there is a lot of pressure to buy either an iPhone or an official (GooglePlay) Android phone. Most (all) services only support these two options. Also true for public/governmental institutions.
On Android the Play Store is a major distributor of malware [1]. I would like to avoid that, which comes with trade-offs, which I accept. Is it perfect? No. But it works.
I do wonder if there is a path where iOS can be completely replaced by a third party OS, so iPhones can be used in a way to allow you to install anything you want, but it is no longer Apple's 'responsibility'. However, that also comes with its own set of problems.
[1] https://www.zdnet.com/article/play-store-identified-as-main-...
In this case, it is the ability for an app to install and execute arbitrary code that hasn't been reviewed. I download an update to DoodleJump and it installs some malware on my device. I'd be none the wiser.
I don't want that stress, which is why I chose an Apple device. It protects me from that scenario.
Go look at your settings?
As the recent leaks showed, the walled garden didn't protect you from invisible malware