Android out of the box is fairly close to jailbroken iOS. Very few things require root.
More likely to be iOS apologists looking for a narrative, they try it out and proclaim that it works, but have no intention to actually use their side loaded test app, so they don't even realize it only looked like it worked.
Yes, they're both shitty in a number of ways. And while is is easier to root Android devices than it is to root iOS ones, last I checked you were still dependent on the vendor kernel and parts of the vendor display server on Android because not all of the necessary drivers and related config are upstreamed (and the lack of TIVO clauses in GPLv2 makes this possible) - meaning replacing 95% of userspace doesn't actually get you very far if your issue is not being able to trust the vendor.
I choose Apple because:
1. Apple is primarily a hardware company. When I buy their hardware, I am their customer. When they make noises about protecting my privacy, I am reasonably confident that very few parts of the business are working to undermine that. OTOH, Google is an advertising company. When I buy their hardware, my eyeballs become their product, which they rent out to their real customers, the advertisers. When they make noises about protecting my privacy, I see that as mostly marketing BS (or, "puffery") which large parts of their business are working to undermine.
2. My phone is not my primary computing device. I have a laptop running GNU/Linux that I use for most of my computing needs, including web browsing, email, and software development. I am fine with my mobile phone being an "appliance" that I use mostly for instant messaging, and occasionally checking the news and weather, taking photos, or making short temporary notes that I will (manually) transfer to my laptop later. And sometimes, even, making phone calls. But I generally stay away from "apps". No, I don't want to install your fucking app, no matter which device it would be on. Just make sure your website works.
Given those factors, I have an Apple phone.
That's not to say Apple is for everyone. My priorities are not everyone else's, and that's fine. Different people have different tradeoffs. If an Android device works better for you, that's great.
Apple still make the vast majority of their revenue from hardware. All of their service revenue combined is only about 20% of their revenue.
Grandparent is claiming that Apple aren’t a hardware company any more. Pointing out that the vast majority of their income comes from hardware is totally relevant.
Apple brings in hundreds of billions from selling hardware every year. They are definitely still a hardware company.
Apple has passed the event horizon of extracting profits now.
It’s not though. Apple are bringing in hundreds of billions of dollars every year from hardware. That’s not a means to an end, that is the end itself.
Apple are a hardware company. It’s bizarre that you are trying to argue otherwise. They make more money from selling consumer hardware than practically every other company in the world.
You are definitely correct in that Apple are a hardware company.
However (and I think this is the point of disagreement) much of their revenue growth (and presumably profits, but that's harder to assess) comes from services, and from a stock price perspective revenue/profit growth is what matters (you're only as good as your last quarter and all that).
Understanding this is key to understanding lots of Apple's business decisions recently (my favourite was destroying the business model of their competitors using ATT and then refusing to declare their own ad business ATT compliant).
I appreciate you trying to steel-man their argument, but you’ve gone far enough that it doesn’t reflect what they were actually saying. The thing I’m disagreeing with is:
> Apple's no longer a hardware company
There’s no way to spin that into anything resembling reality. If they had said what you are saying, I wouldn’t have objected.
> my favourite was destroying the business model of their competitors using ATT and then refusing to declare their own ad business ATT compliant
It doesn’t really make sense to do so. Apple aren’t an unseen third-party; the user has explicitly chosen to use their products and services. Why would ATT apply here?
Just to clarify, ATT is where Apple says that apps can’t collect data on you and share it with other companies without your permission.
When somebody buys and uses an iPhone, they are clearly making an active choice to be an Apple user. Apple can use their data.
When somebody installs a third-party app Foo, they are clearly making an active choice to be a Foo user. Foo can use their data.
But then Foo adds the Facebook SDK to their app. This is invisible to the user. They haven’t made a choice to be a Facebook user. They don’t even know it’s happening. When Facebook gets their data because they use the Foo application, it’s happening without the user’s knowledge or consent.
ATT doesn’t ban Facebook from tracking them, it just says that the user needs to be asked first. It’s putting Facebook’s access to data on the same level of consent as Apple and the apps people choose to use.
Apple using your tracking data in their own ad business doesn’t violate that norm. The data isn’t being sent to an unknown third-party. Apple says:
> The Apple advertising platform does not track you, nor does it buy or share your personal information with other companies.
— https://www.apple.com/sg/privacy/control/
Do you have reason to believe this is a lie? Because if it’s the truth, then Apple are playing by the same rules as everybody else.
And they're really not playing by the same rules as everyone else given that they own the platform that all this activity takes place on, so they get basically all iOS users data without needing any permission dialogue.
This is literally part of their ad sales pitch and ads is the fastest growing part of the services business.
So maybe they don't do all this stuff now (but they don't need to because they receive installs and conversions by the very nature of running the platform).
Like, google could make the same claim Apple make here and it would be true for Android.
When BMW is gatekeeping features behind subscriptions, is that also irrelevant because they're a car company? We shouldn't just stop discussing it.
I was saying that the difference between revenue and profit is irrelevant for the purpose of this argument. You’re now trying to draw an analogy with what I said and gatekeeping features behind subscriptions, which is not what I called irrelevant.
The analogous situation is if you said BMW were no longer a car company for doing so, and I’d disagree with that as well. Apple makes tonnes of money selling hardware, BMW makes tonnes of money selling cars. Apple is still a hardware company and BMW is still a car company.
Why?
A few weeks ago I was also stuck in a situation where he appeared to play dumb and refused to acknowledge the contradictions in his positions and the level of indignation that followed afterwards was unbelievable.
> this also isn’t a legitimate difference of opinion scenario.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39026820
You were being unreasonable and insulting. If you are going to continue to act like that, how about we stay out of each other’s way? Don’t drag this thread down into a flamewar as well.
Of course Apple tries to squeeze out of this system as possible at different fronts.
That's where government laws come in, to make the playing field more even.
Xbox, PS, iPad are consoles. Not everyone wants to DIY the OS and app config and maintenance. Using (digital) cartridges gets all those non value added activities out of the way of just playing the game or using the app.
I don't believe you. I believe that you probably left out some crucial detail, such as having to own a Mac first.
If they intentionally prevent a third party Xcode-compatible implementation from existing, that’s monopolistic behavior. If they don’t want to provide it themselves, it’s a rightful business choice and theirs to make, in my book.
If you think sales of macs are affected in a measurable way by the fact that xcode runs on it you are delusional.
Android builds work on that same mac too.
And you still can't share that app.
Most professional iOS developers use these kinds of services. They are totally commonplace and not against Apple’s terms in the slightest.
Build servers are absolutely fine.
Oh and up until 2019 apple was forbidding any virtualization of macOS in its EULA, there certainly were no free cloud build servers for iOS since relatively recently.
There definitely were. Bitrise had a free plan back in 2014 and they weren’t the only ones.
https://web.archive.org/web/20141103031325/http://www.bitris...
Are you an iOS developer? Because you are repeatedly taking what is considered run of the mill by iOS developers as if it were some outlandish concept you’ve never heard of before. Build servers – yes, with free tiers – have been commonplace for iOS apps for at least a decade.
NOBODY DEVELOPS iOS APPS BY ONLY BUILDING IN THE CLOUD. NEITHER PROFESSIONALS NOR HOBBYISTS. NOBODY ON EARTH. Every iOS developer has a mac, because it's impossible to develop when you can only build 200 times per month (per your link). Yes, professional developers run some CI in the cloud, nobody cares.
> It's just nonsensical to use a device that dictates what you can install on it. Well, Androids don't come with root permissions either ( you should be able to get it easily if you want imo ) but at least you can install any app, even just create your own.
I’m approaching this in the context of side loading (the “you can install any app” part). Other people in the thread have as well:
> If we're getting technical you don't need to jailbreak to sideload on iOS either. AltStore automates the tedium but you can side load just fine on iOS too (for now).
In case you are unaware, it’s somewhat popular to register Apple developer accounts to build and run apps that aren’t on the App Store. That’s what AltStore is all about.
If you don’t have a Mac, you can use a build server for this. Build servers are incredibly common and have been for many years. They haven’t just popped up in the last couple of years.
I see now that you aren’t talking about this at all; you are talking about developing apps. In that context, I agree. You wouldn’t normally use a service like that as a substitute for a development machine (although a very small number of people do actually do this!). But I wasn’t talking about that. I was talking about the side loading case.
Nevertheless, you don’t need “a multithousand dollar apple machine” at all, even for development. I believe the cheapest machine you can buy from Apple brand new that lets you develop and submit an app to the App Store is the 9th gen iPad at 329 USD. Or, if you insist upon a computer, the Mac mini at 599 USD. And of course you don’t have to buy new, so the actual cost of the machine you need is significantly lower than that.
Seriously??? I am not a mobile developer, but that statement is totally bullshit.
I regularly code for 20-60min between running a build.
I highly doubt I get anywhere close to 200 builds a month on all of my hobby projects combined. Obviously work is a different story, but that’s what paid plans are for.
This is getting silly.
I don't know where you get these rumors from honestly.
I’ve heard many, many times that free accounts have a short expiry. I thought it was seven days, and I’ve just checked, and I remembered the duration correctly.
I can’t find an official source, but people mention this limit practically everywhere the topic is discussed. Here’s one reference, Google can help you find many, many more:
https://stackoverflow.com/a/73014888/8427
> Without Official Apple Dev Account
> If you don't have an official Apple Dev Account provisioning will only last for 1 week. The app will expire every 7 days (or less in some cases -- depending upon the day the initial certificate was created).
> With Official Apple Dev Account
> You will be able to provision your app for up to 1 year.
Can you create a provisioning profile with an expiry more than one week into the future with a free account?
edit: Also, in some cases you lose warranty.
On Android, with Android 12, we can now have apps on neostore (fdroid frontend) auto update. There is no good reason to defend apple here. You as a user are always free to not install third party app stores.
...I do right now. So that isn't a fact. It's a myth.
There are a number of scary warnings to click through but that's it. Not great for security but the official distribution is good enough that it's not a problem outside a few select countries where doing business is hard.
The fact that desktop and server Linux distros still have a root account, have sudo, or said binaries is evidence of how far behind they are in terms of security.
Final, ultimate control must always be vested somewhere. Your argument is that it's "more secure" for it to be in the hands of a profit-seeking corporation than in the hands that are holding the device.
Yes. The identity a company like Apple is known and trusted. The person holding a device is not a known identity. This is unrelated to not having sudo though. Take for example the ping command. There is no reason why the user must have access to an account that has ultimate control over the device to use ping. ping should be possible to be used by a normal user. This could be implemented with a ping daemon that run with a dedicated user that has the capability to use raw sockets, and then normal users have a ping client that talks to such daemon. You can come up with everything someone would need root for and define a more secure way to offer that functionality to the user.