They are both well-tended gardens of different types for different uses. Much higher walls on the phone is a great feature IMO.
You can, legally. You have that right. You can legally jailbreak a supported iPhone in 10 minutes and sideload all day or lldb attach to whatever you want. Nobody will stop you.
But Apple doesn't want to support an open platform. That's their right. They don't want it to part of their ecosystem, their brand, or provide the avalanche of non-negligible support costs.
The distinction here is important and rarely addressed in these discussion.
I mean, Apple blocked countless jailbreaks as of today. It's AFAIK also against their ToS, therefore means they legally try to make it so you don't jailbreak. Can you _really_? Sounds more like a gray area they simply cannot control, but they're definitely trying their hardest to do so...
https://www.macworld.com/article/206764/jailbreak_exemption....
I would understand (though personally disagree) if you wanted the walled garden everywhere, but it seems contradictory to only want it on phones and not computers.
https://www.androidpolice.com/microsoft-teams-911-break-emer...
https://www.reddit.com/r/GooglePixel/comments/r4xz1f/pixel_p...
Interesting quote: Cause let's be real, as someone without a landline, I sure as hell don't want a phone that freaks out when I try to call 911 in the middle of a life threatening emergency. I'm supposed to trust that a phone will do the main thing is built for, and place the call, and let me speak to the human on the other end.
If you're worried about low-quality software being side-loaded onto the phone, you can just not side-load anything. That's probably how most Android users use their devices. But it's nice that the walled garden has a gate.
But that’s an interesting question anyway. Apple and google can remove apps distributed through their stores. If a side loaded malicious app exploited this bug, would you have been in favor of google being able to disable those apps? Or should users wait a month until it is sort of fixed on some phones, and be unable to dial emergency services during the month where this was unpatched?
> Apple can also issue a revocation ticket for apps known to be malicious—even if they’ve been previously notarized.
https://support.apple.com/guide/security/protecting-against-...
https://developer.apple.com/documentation/security/notarizin...
And iPads?
This was simply the question I was trying to answer. No more.
My personal feeling, however, is that, if there is a suitable alternative, people should be allowed to buy a device knowing the limitations (artificial or not).
Nobody is surprised that there isn't an alternative App Store an iPhone or iPad. If that's important to folks, they have plenty of Android or Microsoft alternatives.
It feels a lot to me like people buy a blue car, then complain that it's not a red car. I honestly don't understand why people don't just buy the red car in the first place.
That's not at all obvious. What is the distinguishing characteristic that makes it reasonable for a giant corporation to have total control over how you use one but not the other?