I am not defending closed platforms, but technically, you are free to jailbreak your phone, they're just not obligated to provide any support after that, right?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IOS_jailbreaking#Legality

If Apple provided a way to jailbreak their devices, I'd be more inclined to support this argument. But they try to prevent jailbreaking at every opportunity so, regardless of the legality of it, Apple does not consider the phone your system, they consider it theirs.

No. There's no check for Cydia or other Debian Package frontends that are there to void your warranty or stop you from downloading cracked apps (they very well could do this). They only patch the security vulnerabilities that are actually used to break out of the app sandbox and run arbitrary code, something that, as we can see with Epic's Fortnite app, could be RCE'd into an app without Apple knowing. These vulnerabilities can and have been used by actual malware in the past[0], so Apple fixing them in iOS is a legitimate security measure.

0: https://blog.talosintelligence.com/2019/10/checkrain-click-f...

Right, but there’s no non-security-vulnerability way to jailbreak. If jailbreaking was as easy as `adb oem unlock`, no one would need to use any security issues to jailbreak.

They mostly prevent jail breaking because the same processes that jailbreak a phone can often be used to hack peoples phones because they’re security loopholes.

My Samsung A40 has a toggle called "OEM unlocking - Allow the bootloader to be unlocked". That's in the developer options. My previous phone from Sony had the same option. If Apple wanted they could do the same.

Security loopholes are a different thing.

They prevent jailbreaking by not providing a way to do it.

They additionally prevent jailbreaking by patching vulnerabilities.

Only one of these things is being called out.

You can get into all sorts of theoretical discussions about how if there was a way to do it, they'd be increasing their attack surface since now they have to make sure this path is locked properly when the user doesn't want it, but people act like the only way for jailbreaking to work is for Apple to stop patching 0 days, which is not the case.

Meh. If the file system weren’t encrypted I’d agree with you. Now that it is we should be allowed to replace the OS.

And that's also why Apple insists on calling your personal computer(PC) a Mac instead. Clearly they don't think it's your computer.

tHiS IS nOt a Pc BUt a mAc, you know? ;p

heh, jailbreak is a bad solution to a problem that should not exist.

You should not have to rely on security issues in order to install whatever you want on your phone.

Jailbreak should only be needed when you want to replace OS blocks, not just install something.

Say you go and buy the latest iPhone, on the latest OS, and wanted to play Fortnite on it. How'd you do it? I don't think it's even possible to jailbreak it at this point.

Agreed it shouldn't be illegal, but Apple (or any hardware / software maker) should be allowed to do everything in their power to make this extremely inconvenient by putting in hardware blocks, bricking logic, updating their software regularly with new obfuscation techniques, etc. and also, voiding the warranty if there is evidence of tampering with hardware or software.

I understand where you’re coming from and would be ok if it were easy (or even possible) for the community to build an alternative device but that doesn’t appear to be the case.

The technical and social reality that giving apple the freedom to configure the majority of devices in the US is extremely unpleasant. Enough that it makes me question the principles driving the philosophy that allowed this (in particular, the legality of closed software.)

> if it were easy (or even possible) for the community to build an alternative device but that doesn’t appear to be the case.

One of the main roadblocks is intellectual property law. If IP didn't exist, there would be all sorts of iPhone clones with modified versions of iOS.

I'm OK with closed source software being legal, prohibiting closed source would be tyrannical. What I'm not OK is with software patents, copyright, anti-hardware-hacking laws, etc.

Why should any company be allowed to intentionally brick a product I own because I am doing something legal with it that they don't like?

The same reason you have to have a car pass emissions in some states.

We can't deny the security that apple provides over other providers. Part of that is the closed garden - it SHOULD BE a product. The market should provide alternatives.

The only people that benefit from this are big companies - small software devs will have their apps devalued by this move, and the people will just get ripped off more when Epic wins and raises their dumb scam Vbucks to 10$.

Emissions laws are put in place by representatives of the people, for the common good.

Apple saying that I'm not allowed to step outside their walled garden on a device I own is restricting my freedom.

You can easily argue the walled garden is for their user's common good, which it is. Less malware, safer experience, easier to use for less technically savvy people.

> Apple saying that I'm not allowed to step outside their walled garden on a device I own is restricting my freedom.

Only if there is no remediation - there is. Buy an android and quit moaning. "Freedoms." Laughable. Belarus is shooting people and you're mad because you can't force a company to do what you want when the free market can easily solve the problem.

You could argue that Microsoft bundling IE was 'for their user's common good' just the same. It was certainly nice and convenient, and made Windows easier to use. And it wasn't restricting anyone's freedom, because they could just use Unix instead.

Except none of those things are the point of antitrust law. But I guess who cares anyway, when genocide is always worse than these things, so we shouldn't care about them?

They wouldn’t brick anything actively. You bought a product that bricks under certain conditions. You know that when you buy it.

It has been well established for almost a hundred years now, that anti-competitive behavior is illegal, and will be prosecuted against.

I'm sure if you install some version of Linux in your iPhone you can do whatever you want. But you're probably using iOS.

They don’t really give you the option of installing Linux on the iPhone tho, do they?

This is pretty much the whole legal theory of locked-down devices. Since you own them you're free to whatever you like to the hardware including breaking any locks preventing you from running your own software on them. But the vendor has no obligation to help, or support you in doing this.

This is pretty much the whole reason the GPLv3 exists.

> But the vendor has no obligation to help, or support you in doing this.

No obligation to help vs actively hindering are not really the same thing.

I would install desktop Linux on my iPhone if I could but there are no drivers in mainline and they work hard to lock the bootloader down (and before someone suggests android, the intention there is just as bad but tends to be less well executed and there still aren’t suitable drivers available.)

Well if your intention is to install Linux in your phone maybe iPhone is not the best choice.

Give me a better choice and I’ll go buy it right now if it actually works.

Anything requiring a single android component goes in the “doesn’t actually work” category.

I mean the Librem 5 "works" in the way you describe.

I don't think you're going to really be able to reliably avoid the problem that very very very few people outside of AOSP are doing any work on OSS for phones.

I bought a pine phone the other month when the postmarketOS version was released. I’m looking forward to getting it some time in November.

Well if Apple is the best choice then there's no need to complain to them.

The reason they’re the best choice is because I’m stuck with whatever OS the device ships with and android is a pretty broken OS.

Neither is nice but at least iOS gets updates.

On what grounds are you demanding that Apple sell the product that you want to buy?

They sell products. Those products have well-known rules. If you don't like the rules, don't buy the product.

This sounds like some gop talking point, embarrassing.

That's the nature of our society.

An argument can be made that it's morally wrong, but if you're going down that road, there's a lot of things should be morally more compelling than Apple's AppStore policies.