I don’t want my non-technical family members being persuaded to install other stores.
It is absolutely a feature, and a beneficial one at that, which many people want.
As for Apple allowing people to install other stores - why should they? Why not just buy an Android phone if you want that feature.
On Android this isn't an issue, you leave sideloading disabled. Apple could use the same method. Apple could even make you use XCode to unlock the ability. But locking it entirely is obnoxious.
Wow. That is actually a really elegant solution to that problem. Well done.
The only way I would change it would be to walk it a little away from Xcode, and have it be through an official tool for Mac/Linux/Windows, and possibly open source it so it could be ported to BSD/whatever else by the community.
That has it's own issues though, and I don't know that it would actually be better, it's just where I would draw the line.
This option doesn't open a black hole that suddenly swallows your grandparents.
Where are all the people begging for Google to close this?
Frankly, that's not your decision to make.
If they own the device, they get to decide. If they don't or are too young, then you can use various controls (i.e parental controls) to lock your devices down the way you want.
This is a straw man.
Frankly, it's also my families decision to use Facebook, and they have the freedom to use it, but that doesn't mean I won't continue to discourage them from using the platform. Just because that's their decision doesn't mean they are properly informed about their technical decisions or understand the impact. If absolute distribution freedom was a major concern for them I'd tell them to buy Androids.
If they own the device they get to use it as it was designed to be used.
They also have the legal right to change it themselves (at least in the US).
What you don’t have is any basis for forcing Apple to design software the way you want, or to force my family members not to be able to follow my recommendation to choose iOS as Apple wants to offer it to them.
That’s between them and Apple and me.
What right do have to dictate how any of these three parties choose to interact?
There is no straw man.
You're voting to make our industry inequitable and running software some Orwellian dystopia.
I wouldn't be surprised if Apple one day mandated that we hand them the copyright to the code we write. We're one step away from that now: we already have to write against a strict spec, fit all the rules, and are subject to arbitrary dismissal. They take 30% and leave us the crumbs. The appeals process is unfair. If Apple likes what you've got, they can just clone your app. One step away.
We're in prison and you're rationalizing about your parents.
Do you own an iPhone?
The commenter claims to be imprisoned by Apple.
If that’s true, I want to understand how they got that way.
If it’s not true, then their entire argument is questionable.
Politicians can legislate things. They already get to dictate how parties interact. I'm not sure how rights come into it, since they wouldn't be breaching any of your rights that I can think of.
Users simply cannot control their devices. No individual can no matter how skilled. Software complexity moved past that point decades ago.
All we can actually do is choose who to trust when we acquire software.
Nobody is forced to choose or trust Apple, but many do.
Since choices exist for people who want to decide for themselves who they trust to provide software, the argument cannot be about that.
The people who argue that Apple should be forced to allow third party stores are only interested in the potential commercial gain they could make if they had access to Apple’s customers.
They just want access to the customers so they can make money out of them.
That is all this argument is about and all it has ever been about.
> They just want access to the customers so they can make money out of them.
> That is all this argument is about and all it has ever been about.
And this is not an accurate representation of reality. I have zero professional or financial connection to software development, but I still want Apple to allow third-party stores or at least third-party installs so I can do the things on my phone that I want to that Apple says no to. I want to play games on an emulator, I want to stream video games (e.g. xCloud) without downloading individual wrapper apps for each game or attempting to play through Safari, I want to use proper browser engines other than Safari and hopefully have proper uncrippled PWA support, I want to run interpreters/compilers/shells like iSH, I want to play adult games, etc.
What I find even more abhorrent is the notion that because you bought an Apple product that you belong solely to Apple when it comes to anything in regards to that device. I'm a consumer/customer period, not Apple's customer. I bought the phone because of the hardware quality and that should be the end of the transaction.
The law allows you to hack on it in any way you like.
What you are saying is that you don’t have the capacity to make the phone do what you want.
You want Apple to do that work, and you want the government to force them to do it for you.
That is not the same thing.
You didn’t have to buy it if it didn’t do what you wanted.
Are you claiming you didn’t know it was locked down before you bought it?
I know what I bought and iPhones are still the best option for my use case despite the limitations. Just because I decided to purchase an iPhone from the limited options (Android or nothing), doesn't mean I have to be head-over-heels in love with it and I can still be unhappy with certain aspects of it. I can still desire improvements to what I consider the best available option.
You can continue to try to do mental gymnastics and twist the contexts here, but you're bending over backwards to let Apple bend you over.
What's even more frustratingly absurd is that you think that you can "hack" your iPhone without going through Apple. The only way to do that is purchasing a Mac for around $1k and to get over the previously mentioned bullshit 7-day restriction is a $99/yr developer account.
I don’t have any problem with you being unhappy with Apple for not building what you want. The iPhone is pretty far from what I want too.
What I dispute is that they should be forced to build something for you, or that there is any ‘should’ about this. I want an open device too, and would prefer such a device to the iPhone, however I don’t want Apple to be forced to make one for me.
There are no gymnastics going on here. Apple’s software is not designed to make it easy for you to customize the way you would like. Nobody disputes that.
What I dispute is the use of the government to force them to change their designs, especially since we have alternatives to choose from and can contribute to them if we so desire.
Right, but when you buy an iPhone Apple says that they are the only people you can trust. The argument is that this isn't necessarily the best scenario.
If you don’t think it is best, nobody is forcing you to trust them.
That is currently your right.
It’s not clear what your complaint is.
If you want easier customization buy Android. That is one of the selling points.
Not all cars are engineered to be cheap to customize easily.
They make it willfully difficult to compromise it.
It’s not equal to cars, because cars aren’t software and are not vulnerable to the many attacks that phones are.
It seems like you want a more customizable device and are happy to accept the risks.
Why buy an iPhone if it isn’t what you want?
Installing Apps can definitely be compromising: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trojan_horse_(computing)
Perhaps you should brush up on computer security.
Just because it’s hard to modify an incredibly complex piece of microelectronics and a huge software base doesn’t mean you don’t have the right.
What you are asking for has nothing to do with freedom.
It has to do with you wanting to force Apple to design their product differently to support your individual desires.
I’m correct to point out that for someone like you, a choice is already available.
I am sorry this is completely off topic. But it is quite funny I notice the word suddenly gained usage, ( especially in any political debate ) and it is now sort of misused and misapplied all over the place.
( Not suggesting your or your GP are right or wrong in using the term )
Not sure how that affected elsewhere and IE is still bundled where I live but nevertheless reminiscent.
Comparing buying a phone to being enslaved is quite bizarre.
There is a thing. They may or may not prefer different ways of handling that thing. Apple makes a choice for them, and prevents them from making their own choice.
Call it what you will, but in my book, lacking the freedom to make your own choices is the definition of slavery.
This is a straw man.
Support allowing users to add alternate stores on iOS devices.
Having one choice is not freedom. And it has nothing to do with curration. If Apple's model is superior, then their app store will win against fair competition.