Yeah, whatever. Who wants to have control over their device anyway? Much better if Apple gets to decide what I do with my iDevice. Not sure why Microsoft hasn't started the same approach, at least Linux distributions discourage people from installing software outside of the repositories, but there is much work left to be done in actually making that impossible. At least the latest innovations in home computing, smart speakers, don't allow you to run anything at all other than what the makers intended. It's great for privacy if you can't do insecure things.
...
Privacy and control really are much more synonymous than at odds with each other. Sure, allowing someone to shoot themselves in the foot is something you'll want to minimize happening, but if they can't shoot themselves in the foot when they really try very hard, then how much control do they have over their private life really?
> jailbreaking is bad for developers who want to sell nice, simple, pay up front no surveillance software
I fail to see how this is explained by the "because" that comes after it. It just makes zero sense: why would a user taking control be bad for the developers if they don't want to surveil your device anyway? They already have the money up front, as you say. Wouldn't it make more sense to expect something to be mine after I paid for it up front?
> Unless you're of the frankly radical opinion that [something exaggerated to the point where it's clearly illogical]. Then of course what I'm saying makes no sense.
I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. Anyone who disagrees must be of this weird opinion and there can be no other viewpoints: either you're with you or you're illogical and "radical"?
Heh, I suppose you've got me there: I indeed don't buy devices that don't allow taking control by design. But I know there are a lot of people that like other parts of the iOS ecosystem (apps are often more polished; they might be more used to the OS; etc.) and would prefer to keep those while still having having their four freedoms on the device.
I'm pretty sure jailbreaking is bad for developers who want to sell nice, simple, pay up front no surveillance software, because that is primarily threatened by the very piracy jailbreaking enables.
You might imagine jailbreaking is all about giving people control or whatever. Ultimately it just means, due to piracy, that the only people that are allowed to make money off software is Google and Facebook, through ads, or other companies, which just routinely abuse the spirit of open source to monetize other people's work.
Unless you're of the frankly radical opinion that anything that costs money is bad, and everything that is free is automatically better, and that the whole app ecosystem, that pays out like billions a year to actual, bonafide human beings writing software, could be instead totally supplanted by free websites. Then of course what I'm saying makes no sense.