So why are you pushing for everything to have to be a general purpose computer? Why can't there be one phone maker that caters to those who don't want something like that? Why can't you just use Android, which is that? I just find it incredibly unfair that everything has to be the same for some odd reason for people who keep pushing for these things.
Not the parent commenter, but I suppose that the main problem is that there is a duopoly. So either they should be forced to make general-purpose computers (so they can be made to do what the user wants), or there should be more competition, so you can have your locked-down computer, and I can have my general purpose computer.
I am genuinely curious to hear from people who have domain knowledge, I’m not trying to make a point
Microsoft tried doing this with Windows phone, but they couldn't get traction among developers, which made their OS unattractive to end users, which made it unattractive to developers, which made it unattractive ...
Users don't just want a phone, they want a phone that can run all their apps. Developers only publish their apps to the App Store and Google Play, if you want to run the apps that your users want, you need to interface with one of those. This is even harder than the "Linux on the desktop" problem. If you have a good web browser, good support for .exe files (via Wine) and apps that can support most of the file formats users need (notably Microsoft Office files), you have a desktop OS that can replace Windows for most users, no cooperation from Microsoft or third-party developers necessary. You can't do that on mobile, even if you design a perfect iOS or Android emulator, users still won't be able to download any apps unless you get access to a store.
They are already general purpose computers that have been locked down.
I strongly believe users should be able to own their devices no matter what kind. While users should be able to keep those devices locked down if they choose, they should also be able to unlock them and run any software or OS they choose.
I think this applies to consoles just as much as it does to smartphones and tractors.
Allowing companies to prevent users from owning their devices puts less tech savy consumers who don't understand the risks at the mercy of the giant corporations.
If enough people refuse to sideload, developers will continue to provide the App Store as an option. Then you can pay Apple for their curation services if you find those services valuable, and other people won't be forced to pay.
Apple’s App Store review may not be perfect but Apple trying to police apps to make them adhere to some guidelines is better than nothing.
Remember with Facebook pushed a sneaky VPN as part of their iOS app so they could better track users?
Compared to that, a Facebook app with better tracking is trivial.
Apple could make this against the terms of service for App Store apps, and ban any apps that violate them. If the sideloading option exists, then Apple should be free to regulate the behavior of in-App Store behavior more strictly.
Sounds like those Mac v PC ads from 20 years ago.
Do you think Android users are constantly getting viruses on their phones and having their bank accounts drained?
As the NSO spyware has proven, if someone wants to break your phone, they can. Apple's 30% protection racket won't be able to intervene.
This is why she (and millions like her) chose an iPhone. Are you seriously saying that Apple providing that as an option is anti-consumer?
There has to be a way for the physical owner to have full control over the device. It's not even a matter of inmediate benefit, but rather good consumer/human rights policy.
Much like the right to privacy, data control and GDPR, it didn't matter that many services relied on tracking-based ad revenue to survive, the user's right to privacy superseded that, and so the law was passed.
This is somewhat the same principle. The general "digital right" to control, or to at least have the same degree of control as the manufacturer (for cases where not even they can control it fully after it comes out of the factory), is becoming an increasingly important thing with every passing day. It's no longer only about taste, but about public policy.
You're arguing that they don't know what's good for them, but I'm not seeing how that's a more pro-consumer stance than Apple's willingness to provide what customers want.
Not really. In fact, that security and safety can be enforced even under the framework I'm proposing. Windows Defender is quite good these days, same on Android. It really doesn't compare to the early Win32/KitKat days.
"Outsourcing security to someone else" is a slippery slope of a DRM, anti-repair and anti-ownership future. We should be striving for more individual ownership and control over the devices and assets that we rely on for our daily lives, not less.
Really? Do you have "full control" over your TV? Your dishwasher? Your microwave? Your car?
I hear this argument on HN, but I've never met an iPhone customer who complained about not being able to side-load apps. Anecdata to be sure, but Apple's goal is to satisfy customers and therefore sell lots and lots of phones. If there were significant customer demand, Apple would work to satisfy that demand.
You should. I would 100% support a law that forces companies to not implement digital locks that only they can open, even when the device is no longer owned by them.
I find that hard to believe. I think every person I know who owns an iphone and knows what side loading is would rather it were possible.
Hello, I'm an iPad user and I hate I can't side load apps and that there's no compilers or alternative web engines on the App store.
The thing is, I think I am similar to the vast majority of Apple's customers in my preference for the App Store. Finding and installing software was a hassle before the store. The simplicity of app management with the store has been a revelation. Some will say that my preference shouldn't keep others from getting side-loading and I get that, but I imagine creating that installation path will also create a new exploit path. I don't think most customers will be happy if Apple has to allow side-loading and that leads to weaker security. Hopefully I'm wrong and weakened security can be avoided, but I'm skeptical for now.
A large segment of the HN readership doesn't seem to understand that many of their desires with respect to a device put them in a small minority of Apple's customers. If Apple is satisfying the vast majority of customers, why is that a bad thing?
I think Apple not providing the other option is anti-consumer. It can be as on the macs, where you have SIP and you can disable it if you so wish, although it takes some effort and is not straightforward. The phone can have 2 modes, a safe mode and an unsafe mode, and it's up to people to choose which mode they want to operate in. So your wife still has the option to have the non-general purpose computer in her pocket, and others can have it as a general purpose computer.
Phones and iOS tablets won’t be general purpose computers until I can easily side load and unlock root.
True, but they are also 70% of Apple's app store revenue.
Hence Gruber's suggestion of separate commissions for games vs. other apps.