The iPhone is an appliance that can download "apps" that Apple permits. When I want a "computer" I open up my MacBook.
That Macs are still somewhat open is just a happy historical accident. Enjoy it while it lasts :/
Just give me a simple checkbox in the system settings that this is a "developer machine and I know what I'm doing" which disables all that stuff and it would be fine.
I assumed it would be much more frustrating than going back to Linux. Instead I've found fairly sensible documentation for solving nearly every issue I've run into, and a well stocked repo of applications.
Simply disabling it globally isn't really a good solution to the problem. Neither signed nor unsigned, notarized or un-notarized apps should ever be allowed to write to those folders, no matter if SIP is on or off.
OTH preventing an app to read/write subdirectories in the user's home folder is definitely not a useful feature.
Apple has publicly said that macOS is unacceptably insecure because users have the option of running unapproved software (https://www.theverge.com/2021/5/19/22444353/mac-malware-not-...). It's not unreasonable to think that they'd be interested in fixing that "problem".
They still haven't, haven't even made any big moves that way, but maybe eventually that crowd will be right in the same way that if you predict a recession every year, you'll eventually be right.
They made a thing, and you bought it.
Why would anyone with a bent on free computing walk into what they know to be a closed ecosystem. Just buy an Android phone. It’s like flying to a foreign country and expecting everyone to English to you imo…
If you want an adversarial narrative between Apple and the people, you'll find no greater supporter than me. Europe seems to disagree with Apple's philosophy though, so maybe it's time they reassess their opinions.
This excuse is exhausting, lacks any principles whatsoever; these are general purpose devices, browsing the web & allowing arbitrary apps to be developed & squeezed into the world, if they pass through the tyrant's gauntlet. That one company offers some modicum of un-tyranny is a poor defense for locking down & excluding general purpose computing, for withdrawing the systems we have in our pockets from our own ownership & ability to control.
Citizens should have some options. The implications that the market is free to do whatever & citizens are free to pick from what's available seems presently somewhat tennable, but if we step back just a little bit here & look at the picture, it's horrifying. The inability to root most Android phones shows that actual freedom, real general purpose computing, is an extremely fine & narrowing little sliver, of the most important & most used general computing world.
Good luck.
It should be an absolute no brainer to protect the species, to not close the book on possibility forever, to not let the species be limited & cajoled by impersonal & vast techno-captial-ocratic enterprises, that will hedge us in. But the short term wins arent super clear. "What is the use case?" "We dont know yet." We might have to enable possibility, act on principle, to find out.
The threat of living in a post science world, where the universe around us is illegibile because we made it that way, where we cannot learn or see or work some of the most important & connective matter around us, seems like it's worth all the cards, is a no brainer to go all-in to defend against. The war against general purpose computing is a slow & creeping infernal damnation.
Asking each person to individually be aware of & demanding of what humanity needs feels like a lot. The game is long & plays out in decades, and a lifetime of vigilance seems like a lot for the free market narrative to ask us all. It makes me think perhaps humankind needs representative bodies that can look out for & enable the future to remain open, that can steer us away from the irrevocable ever-narrowing paths, away from an incomprehensible state of being, away from the traps.
Android went dark long ago too. All of the open source apps are abandoned and unmaintained replaced by closed source versions. The Play Store takes a 30% cut of things like Apple. Google decides what kind of apps are available on the app store and it closely matches Apple.
Not arguing but rather expanding: You may be thinking "He just ignored sideloading get real" but tell me, are there any porn apps? No there aren't. They have no distribution channel and are banned on 100% of the computing devices people run their lives with which is their phone. "But porn works just fine in the browser" well so does pretty much anything else even on an iPhone so why are we even chatting in this thread? To end users Android sideloading does not exist.
Apple and Google control what types of software humanity gets to use and there are no viable alternatives. Apple has fully embraced 1984 as these recurring threads keep pointing out but Google follows Apple in lock step on nearly every decision. There is no third choice except the increasingly crippled web.
In terms of mainstream stuff, I think that's less of a "Apple & Google don't want you to have them" and more "society doesn't want you to have them, won't somebody please think of the childreeeeen".
Parents ignoring the fact, of course, that the 3 year old they gave a fucking tablet to with unlimited access can still end up on any of those sites via the browser.
My phone is an appliance. I need it to provide 2 way communications and access to the information on the internet. Apple will provide security updates for the foreseeable future. That's all I want as I enter curmudgeonly old man age.
But yeah, I know I bought a locked down device and I'm ok with that. BMW is charging a subscription for heated seats. I'm not ok with that, so won't be buying one. Obviously, they expect some people still will. I agree with them.
That's the key point: I bought it. It's mine now and I have the moral the moral right to do anything I please with it that isn't immoral. Granted, there can be laws that trample that moral right or artificial technical barriers that attempt to restrict it, but both are unjust. Attempted word magic spells such as "by using this product that you just bought you agree that you didn't actually buy this product" are ridiculous, dishonest, incoherent, and not morally binding.
And ... you do? Is there some reason you can't do whatever you want with the device? This is like complaining that you can't use your xbox or television as a general purpose computing device.
You can legally hack your own iphone. Go for it. You own the device.
This is true, but only due to DMCA exemptions that Apple strongly opposed: https://www.wired.com/2010/07/feds-ok-iphone-jailbreaking/
Give it a year of lower than usual profits and some twitter complaints and they will backpedal at mach 10
Oh, wait...
For example, say I run a sketchy reseller operation that buys old or refurbished Apple equipment and load an iOS-ish/macOS-ish custom unix (and then falsely market it as an "Apple product"). For all intents and purposes, it may look exactly like an official Apple OS, but it isn't.
The untrained eye is oblivious to the differences and now, assuming the "sell" was that that person got an Apple device for cheap from some random seller, Apple now has the potential burden of supporting that. Considering their potential market is in the millions who might be duped by this, by allowing this one little change, they just introduced a support burden that nukes their profit.
Everyone likes to say “but would Apple would lose the $100/yr from all those hobbyists.” How many hobbyists do you think are out there right now paying $100/year just to load some apps on their phone? Can’t be more than 1000. Even if it were 10,000 that would represent $1 million/yr in lost revenue for Apple. That’s less than a rounding error on just one quarterly report. They really don’t care about that!
Apple wants to fully control the devices they're letting people use. Allowing side loading can only be considered a reduction in control of their devices, thus it's against their main mission.
Nah, they're worried someone might sideload a software with payment method that doesn't give them cut
Get real, Apple's target demo is upper-middle class people who want a frictionless computing experience - the kind of people whose response to a massive avoidable security fail would be litigation and political/regulatory action.
Apple treats their users like a nursing home treats senile people.
Why should your personal view obviate the devices' nature?
These are all computers. *Whose* computers is the more important question. And from a look at a lot of these 'narrow focused computer devices' have the company you bought it from still exert control years after your purchase... It's almost like you unwittingly agreed to a rental that was misclassified as a sale. How many times were features removed at a later 'update'? How many features did the device support but didn't make available? How many features were kept because it would keep you from prematurely throwing it away to get the new thing?
Or better yet, with devices that have user-reprogrammable hardware means that the ecological aspect of "obsolete" hardware is that the new feature makes it nearly good as new, all the while keeping it out of the landfills. Sure, stuff going obsolete will still happen... But with repair and upgrades as options means the "Reduce, Reuse, Repair, Recycle" will lead to better outcomes for all. But that's not good for capitalism and profit.
> The iPhone is an appliance that can download "apps" that Apple permits. When I want a "computer" I open up my MacBook.
And, why is your opinion on what a "computer" is important? What criteria are you using? I ask this because we even have "Doom played on a pregnancy test" https://www.pcmag.com/news/yes-doom-is-playable-on-a-pregnan... . Basically any justification or rubric on what a computer is sure looks to me as artificial and gatekeepy.
The obvious upside is that people who start off building hobby apps may well move into developing apps - and perhaps even associated hardware - professionally.
This is very likely to lead to increased goodwill and significant further purchases of products and other services.
Development of Xcode (not the best environment ever...) and Swift/UIKit will continue anyway. There is no sense in which a few thousand/tens of thousands of hobby developers are paying for that to any significant extent.
This does not require sideloading or loosening the security. It requires a slight relaxation of the provisioning system for single devices - something which exists already.
I don't care what the fanboi justifications are. Not doing this makes absolutely no commercial sense. Apple is gaining a somewhat imaginary $99 a year, which hobby developers won't pay anyway, and losing extra sales of hardware and apps which are potentially worth far more. It's also driving hobby coders towards competing ecosystems.
Instead of expanding the ecosystem this contracts it.
> This does not require sideloading or loosening the security. It requires a slight relaxation of the provisioning system for single devices - something which exists already.
They have always had that option. However it goes against the "You bought it, but we retain control forever" aspect that Apple exudes on every hardware line. And even though installing software outside of their "App store" is possible on the laptops, my guess is that soon will not be. Iron-fisted control is their modus operandi.
> The obvious upside is that people who start off building hobby apps may well move into developing apps - and perhaps even associated hardware - professionally.
The counter to that: by having a much of even lower class shovelware, like Android, devalues their platform. They want money developers and big name companies. And it's even better if your org is exclusive to Apple. Stay off those "green text bubble" devices.
> I don't care what the fanboi justifications are. Not doing this makes absolutely no commercial sense. Apple is gaining a somewhat imaginary $99 a year, which hobby developers won't pay anyway, and losing extra sales of hardware and apps which are potentially worth far more. It's also driving hobby coders towards competing ecosystems.
It makes commercial sense if you want to create a nearly impenetrable moat around your hardware, software, and userbase. The $100/yr dev license is also a signpost to everyone that "we mean business - we don't want riff-raff here". And combined with other anti-user and anti-developer decisions (soldered in ram; cpu; disks, and industrial glue on everything now) those devs are either biting the increasingly painful prescription of bullets, or they have already left to "lesser platforms", with low user numbers.