>If you want to live in the walled garden, you of course can do so, just as many people do on Android.

I've had both device types through the years. I've had to support both device types in different form factors. As a developer I love Android. I've learned to code some Java and lightweight game development for Android due to that openness of the platform. But the pros of the walled garden concept do not shine through on Android as they do with Apple due to the lack of how tightly integrated and compatible the hardware & software are from being developed together and approved by a sole source.

As a purchaser of an Apple product, I feel fairly confident that I am Apple's customer. With Android, the customer is the manufacturer\carrier combo that runs my phone, and I am their customer. That distinction carries an important difference and it shows through the development tracts of both companies and how they deal with issues.

Let's be honest here. If this goes through to force Apple to allow competitors to their app store, that decision will go further than developer sideloading (which is already possible). It will not happen in a vacuum and as soon as the courts hand down such a decision the carriers will be next in line to shovel as much horse manure down the line as possible.

I've never purchased an Apple phone with pre-loaded software as part of a deal with a carrier, aka Bloatware. I have from Android manufacturers on several occasions. Lower standards of entry from 3rd party sources often mean lower standards for bugs, resource usage, and privacy concerns. Higher risk of malware. Lower chance of software to OS compatibility. Apple phones with whole disk encryption made the news when the feds couldn't break it as easily as Android devices.

>Macs are so popular amongst developers is the similarity to Linux

Then I rescind the poor choice of analogy and go straight to fundamentals. These two different tools are purpose built for different things from different principles and that is ok. Homogenizing the mobile space in a way that would detract from those differences would be a net negative in my opinion.

> I've never purchased an Apple phone with pre-loaded software as part of a deal with a carrier, aka Bloatware. I have from Android manufacturers on several occasions.

I am fully in agreement with your position, but it is really funny that you mention this specific detail, as it hits much closer to reality than most people realize.

Mostly because as a part of the anti-trust settlement that MSFT had to enter back in the day, they were forced to allow laptop manufacturers to preload bloatware on windows laptops. And I would definitely hate to see that on iPhones, as that was one of the major reasons I ended up switching from Androids (yes, I know, you can root your Android device, install custom Android distro, and get rid of the carrier bloatware, but not having to deal with all of that is precisely why I switched).

The big difference between MSFT and AAPL is that MSFT licensed their software to integrators. MSFT didn't have the option to simply stop selling to those integrators and go it alone.

AAPL can relatively (compared to MSFT back in the day) easily decide to be the sole retailer of their own hardware and software stack, and cease to sell their phones through carriers.

AAPL already offers direct financing solutions, and trade in solutions, through their own retail channels. SIM-only plans tend to be cheaper as the carriers can no longer hide behind hardware costs to obfuscate their plans.

Who loses in this equation? AAPL might, through reduced sales. The carriers might, through reduced margins. Is either of those things bad to the consumer?

Doesn't AAPL already sell carrier plans as part of their iPhone retail experience?

When did MSFT sell hardware as part of their software licensing retail experience in the 90s?

Also a good point and not something I had considered. Thanks for that. I agree this wouldn't hurt my feeling either and would make the most sense. Problem being when it goes before the court as it appears it will soon, there is no telling where regulation might fall especially with this kind of money involved. Hopefully a rational outcome like you've stated will prevail.

This is a very good and poignant point and probably my biggest overarching fear of the fallout from this decision. My post was already thick and didn't want to get into setting context for this but you are exactly right. I am surprised more folks here don't realize that about the MS antitrust stuff. Except the carriers in this case have the ability to remain as gatekeepers of these requirements where the laptop manufacturers were much more limited in scope once the device left their buildings.

Do you also support cars only being allowed to be repaired at specific dealers, only using tires sold through the manufacturer with a 30 % cut? Luckily this is illegal in most of the world. In the EU I can change the battery, tires and oil and the manufacturer can't deny it or remove the warranty. With an iPhone i can't even have a pro technician work on my phone without Apple taking away warranty from me and calling the cops on the technician's shop for importing refurbished Apple parts. They will be either forced to open up or they will be split up in tiny unrecognisable pieces.

You are stretching equivalencies here pretty hard with regards to capital investment of a product vs. expectations but I'll play along.

If I was told this plainly and openly up front then I wouldn't buy the car to begin with -IF- that is what I value in that specific vehicle. My car? Not a chance, I like my sports car and working on it is part of the fun I get from it. My wife's people carrier? If those repairs are close in line with other repair shops even after the 30% AND they'll come pick it up or tow it so I don't even have to mess with it? Absolutely, where do I sign up? Different tools have different uses and value propositions.

A better analogy is a resort. It's got beautiful beaches, gets the top acts to perform at the club, and the food is Michelin 3 star. The resort has armed security, so no one needs to worry about being mugged, or having their rooms robbed while they're out clubbing. The resort decides who can sell food, who can perform at the clubs, and who can teach you how to surf at the beach.

I would be interested to know what would happen if Apple said “sure — install whatever you want, but your warranty is now void.” How many people (especially the EU) would have a problem with that?

I mean, that’s effectively where this whole argument leads. You could imagine a scenario where using external software could damage things like your battery, so now the user is on their own.

I don’t think that’s a tenable option either.

This is effectively what Google does with Chromebooks and developer mode. But if you’ve enabled developer mode, can’t you go back? But when you get into trouble, you can revert back to the base install (and lose all other data). Again, that’s not a good option either as people would complain about that too.

There is absolutely no reason behind it. Running arbitrary code in user space has absolutely no bearing on the actual hardware, if it can cause harm than it is a hardware bug (eg, a javascript engine vuln. than could brick the phone)

Why is it a bad thing for you that other’s get to use their phones have they see it fit after paying for it quite a bit, while the whole thing won’t case any difference to you?

User-space code can definitely have effects on the hardware.

A program that phones home often with tracking data, thus keeping a data connection open and the processor from sleeping would absolutely have an impact on battery life and longevity. This would be code that Apple would normally block at the AppStore level.

And we saw how mad people were when Apple slowed down processing speeds to extend battery life. Can you imagine the outrage if Apple suddenly said that your battery is no longer under warranty because you installed the Facebook app directly from Facebook?

Ios has a great API and sandbox for apps, and will kill apps in the background unless they explicitly ask for permission to do additional work. It has nothing to do with sideloading apps, this security is the bare minimum for even trusted code.

The ability to run arbitrary software on a computer is not required to call it bug-free. You can't safely run whatever software you want on the computers in your car, for example.

I replied by the logic that forfeiting guarantee is unreasonable since sideloaded apps can only break as much as existing apps can.

There are good reasons to disallow any third party applications on some platforms like cars, but apple allows it and they only have a quick look at applications. The real security is in their sandbox/API.

People share and distribute modified firmware dumps and load them on their automotive ECUs. It's actually quite common.