Do you think that general purpose computing devices, which an iPhone is, should no longer have the capability to run software without third-party auditing and approval?
You are free to stay in the walled garden if you wish, but I think there is something disturbing about rallying for others to also lose the rights that are not important to you.
Software is in a lot of cases non-fungible and so I gain exactly zero choice and freedom when a piece of software I need decides in the name of "freedom" to switch payment systems and app stores. I at least chose to buy an iPhone and want to use the App Store, the same can't be said for a would-be game that's exclusively on the Epic store.
My only real choice as a user on most platforms is just not using an app, but Apple actually has some weight to throw around in my interest. It's technically not "choice" or "freedom" in the way you want but broadly they make the decisions I would have made and actually have the power to make it happen.
I am unclear on how you have made that inference based on me saying that I do not want deceptive advertising in apps.
> Do you think that general purpose computing devices, which an iPhone is, should no longer have the capability to run software without third-party auditing and approval?
No, I think that if users _want_ to download malware, spyware, or simply ad-laden apps, then they should certainly have the capability to do so (hence, sideloading). My suspicions however, is that outside of malware researchers, users do not want this.
Meanwhile, do you think that users should be exposed to deceptive advertising in their apps?
Yep, i'm very happy that privacy/security audit is done already by the app store.
> But do you also believe that other people should not have the right to install software that has not been blessed by an authority on their devices?
This is tricky question. Suppose they can, after opt-in. 1) Tons of crap weather and flashlight and Coupons apps gets user data breached, scams ensue. 2) Incentive to build quality apps drops, as people install clone apps your profits will evaporate. 3) Malware
If they did thirty seconds of research in the market they would see that there is a large ecosystem of devices that allow unsigned apps to be installed by the owner that they could have chosen.
Where do we leave those who have to live with their devices, or simply lacked the knowledge to make that important distinction at the time, or things have changed and now they need to install apps that have not been approved by Apple. Wouldn't the solution be to offer people that need to live with their right to sideload apps on their devices an escape hatch, instead of telling them to change platforms?
Its equally correct to say, "the rights of those people are needfully restricted."
If people cannot choose their devices, or are miss-informed that is a big issue and should not be tolerated. Meanwhile, allowing Apple to build an amazing, curated customer experience for me is why I choose Apple's ecosystem for me and my family. I don't want my parents or future children getting misled into downloading malware, or berated by ads, or giving out their credit cards to an un-trusted application disguised as "verified by Apple".
The walled garden is a feature, with tradeoffs. Not different from my shower head or fridge making feature based tradeoffs. If you don't like the energy bills for your washing machine, suing or regulating the company to improve it isn't the right strategy. Just buy a different brand that matches your needs.
If you want sideloading on iOS (beyond what the web offers), buy an Android.
What about the users who lacked the important knowledge that the apps they downloaded had deceptive advertising, or malware?
Should we no longer be able to run software that has not received third-party approval?
There are barely any devices these days which cannot meet the definition of "general purpose computing device" without drawing some arbitrary line somewhere. Certainly every modern game console qualifies. Are Roku boxes general purpose if it weren't for their locked down nature?
I mean, I'm all for legislation saying you can't lock down products like this, I just don't think that's what the people advocating for this want in most cases. They just want special rules for iPhones in particular.
A quick search for the term "general purpose device" gives me definitions such as the following:
Any computer-based device that accepts different applications.
How is that really different than what Apple does?
On an iPhone, I do expect to be able to do general purpose tasks because it's input methods allow me to conveniently do those general purpose tasks.
As far as I am aware, there is no reason other than artificially imposed limitations that a Bluetooth or USB keyboard could not be connected to a Swtich.
It's the same thing, the manufacturer arbitrarily chose what functionality to allow and what not to allow.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.iclarified.com/52314/how-to...
If you want to frame this as an ideological debate over freedom of user choice, instead of a very specific debate about a very specific App Store rule (even though the latter, and not the former, is what the email in the OP is about), then sure: you have the choice to select a device with a tightly-controlled ecosystem. You also have the choice not to. It was your choice to obtain this device, knowing full well that it would be tightly controlled. Or if you didn't know, you also have the right to return the device and no longer use it.
Get an Android phone and use the Play Store (or any of the 3rd party Android stores). The magic of a smartphone isn't only on iPhone and there's nothing you can do on iPhone that you can't do elsewhere.
Apple and Google have an effective duopoly on the mobile and tablet app distribution markets.
[1]: https://hindenburg.com/products/hindenburg-field-recorder
“I subsequently spoke to Phillip Shoemaker, who confirmed that Apple executives ordered the elimination of apps that drove downloads to the App Store. He said "Your app drove download volume. Apple doesn’t want any outside sources to drive ratings. So yeah, we got rid of all app recommendation apps." He said he thought it was unfair, but this was something Apple set out to do, and even as Senior Director of App Store (person directly in charge of App Review), he could not stop it.”
That's only a danger if the app review program doesn't work
The rule exists for precisely the reason this email notes: to prevent the selling of deceptive in-app ads. How are App Review personnel supposed to know if the in-app links to other apps are there to really "serve the user" or as paid advertising? They can't, hence the rule. I don't see this is a problem, I see this as a good thing - I don't want to be exposed to deceptive advertising.