Are you legally prevented from controlling your device in any way you wish after purchase?
I think people are conflating ease of modification from legally being able to do so. If it's legal, then Apple retains no control over the device.
I think people are conflating ease of modification from legally being able to do so. If it's legal, then Apple retains no control over the device.
The bar isnt whether it is legal or not. You know that no company can create laws, and either you're saying it out of ignorance, or willful ignorance.
When Walmart drives away mom and pop shops, and dominate a certain town and then hikes the prices for groceries, you cant say "but it isnt illegal to go buy groceries from elsewhere, what did we - Walmart - do wrong?"
Say it with me - monopoly rules are about consumer choice.
> I think it's perfectly fine to prevent you from having this
Yes I can, legally and morally.
How is the data checkout working on iOS to migrate to Android?
You can always just build your own phone network if you don't like it!
You are on the wrong side of history.
Like think about this logically? Should a grocery store be forced to sell my products without receiving any of the profit? Can I force a cafe to let me serve customers on their premises without giving anything in return?
Apple has no right to piggybacking off of another company's business. Therefore the 30% must go.
Compare Apple with Steam (who also provide the infrastructure, marketplace and platform). Steam don't force developers to use their services. They're still successful, but you can get almost every game on Steam from somewhere else. This is what I'd ideally like Apple to do. It wouldn't make any difference to me, as I haven't owned or developed for Apple devices in many decades, but it would make a huge difference to many developers, and many device owners. I doubt it will actually make that much difference to Apple's profits, but it would make a difference to the rapidly declining good will they have in the developer community, and increasingly in their customers.
Should the construction company that built the grocery store be able to take a cut off grocery profits and have a say in what the store is selling?
I'm sick of people writing off entire classes of problems because "well, it's not illegal". The law doesn't matter until you're actually in court. What matters is practicalities. There are many rights that are impractical to use and there are many laws that are unenforced. Some problems could be solved by law, others probably not. The law is a solution, not a problem. Focus on problems, not solutions.
What Apple is taking away is practical control for owners of a class of device that has become essential to my practical participation in society.
I actually desire my country to intervene and change laws forcing Apple give me that control.
"Vote with your wallet" is a BS argument in such a duopoly, because people care about other stuff.
In my opinion it is perfectly fine for society to order a company to hypothetically limit you on this minor thing (and let's be frank: this is super minor), because opening up iOS would benefit companies, countries, economies and other users of phones.
Especially in the light of the only real complaint being that "there is a possibility of loss of security".
Apple have over a billion iPhones out there I believe, and your phrasing of "it's all of us vs just you" is really inappropriate - both from an argumentation perspective and probably a fact perspective too.
And the fact that people have iPhones doesn't invalidate my assertion, also it doesn't affect my right to an opinion.
No-one's saying you don't have a right to an opinion. Everyone has that right. It's bad faith to try and misrepresent what the person you're talking to is saying.
> No-one's saying you don't have a right to an opinion
Someone said to me “Who are you to claim that my consumer desires are irrelevant?” so you’re wrong.
Why would you make up something like this? What's the benefit to you?
It's legitimately easier to just buy a UMPC with an LTE card and use VOIP than do that. That's how bad the situation is at this point.
I say this as someone who gets paid to work on open source and used PostMarketOS on my primary cell phone for years. Even technical people really only have two options right now.
And of course, recommendations for LTE modules would be appreciated. Ideally built in, but external modules are also good, all they really need is linux support.
What about we meet in the middle and governments force Apple to only open 50% of the phones, for the same price. Would that satisfy you?
And I 100% guarantee that the piece of this 30% pie is way bigger than the effort it would require them to divert their development like you're suggesting.
EDIT: Oh, and I also bet their lawyer bill for fighting this is bigger than that too. :)
And if the argument has become about security, as others have said, Jailbreak has repeatedly relied on security issues, so the security problems have always been there.
But making the argument that Apple is the only company to solve secure payments on the internet is silly.
On one side it's called jailbreaking, on the other it's called rooting. It's really the same thing you're fighting against.