You could get the same security if you voluntarily limited yourself to the app store, or never unlocked your iPhone.

> apple doesn’t have an obligation to make it easy

Nor do countries have an obligation to allow Apple access to their markets if Apple refuses to respect user freedom, should that be legally required.

> Nor do countries have an obligation to allow Apple access to their markets if Apple refuses to respect user freedom, should that be legally required.

Well, yes. Go look at China[0] and see just how far apple is willing to bend over backwards to stay in a market (although for China they pretty much had to unless they wanted to lose access to their entire existing supply chain). My point is that I should be able to purchase a device completely locked down and Apple should be allowed to make that device. People who don't like that can purchase something else.

0: https://www.nytimes.com/2021/05/17/technology/apple-china-ce...

But you tacked on that your threat model is less than Android because Apple babysits your device. An alternative app store existing does not have the ability to compromise your device unless you use it. Android has many app stores and 95% of users use the platform's default one. Therefore it is the same level of security as your Apple product with more freedom should the user take advantage of it. Walled gardens are not secure.

If it wasn't for network and ecosystem effects, I'd agree with you. But much like I can't simply not visit websites with Facebook's or Google's trackers, without cutting myself off from a huge chunk of the modern world, allowing locked-down devices to take up a larger and larger chunk of consumer computers has effects beyond the initial purchase.

Well your want for a locked down device is restricting my freedom. Too bad.

The locks on my front door also restrict your freedom. Please feel free to try to enter a house that does not have locks on the door.

I do not agree. It's not because my door does not have locks that you can feel free to enter. And vice-versa, it's not because there are locks on a door, that you don't have the right to try to enter...

Your analogy is not exactly correct. With an iDevice, this is someone else installing locks on your own door and not giving you the key, and they monitor who is allowed into your house. Even if you wanted the key they won't give it to you nor let you replace the locks.

You should probably read the whole post before replying in clichés.

If you're in favor of a locked down operating system there's nothing else I need to know.

If you think I said that then there's likely a huge amount you need to know.

You're free to purchase something not locked down. If there's no market for a device like that, then you're out of luck.

Imagine being such an apple shill you make logical fallacies to try to prove your point. I have ZERO freedom to not own an apple device when someone gives it to me for free. Nor do I have any freedom to not own iOS toys garbage when working on it for work. Please fuck off with your bullshit. Apple is already flagrantly violating right to repair laws with shills like you cheering them on.

You are literally standing in the way of progress and you're NOT more secure on iOS. If anything you're a bigger and easier to break down target.

You can refuse to accept the device.

If you work at a place where part of the job description is that you must work on devices that you refuse to accept, then you can always choose to leave that job and go somewhere else.

Don’t pretend that you don’t have a choice here.

I'm literally staring at a stack of old work iPhones I had zero input into owning or having that I could easily turn into a mini distcc cluster and make use of their computing power but I can't cause there's no app for that so instead they are digital bricks waiting for the landfill.

This anti freedom nonsense must stop. The ability to side load does not make an eco system weak.

Your freedom to purchase a different product is not in qustion.

This makes no sense to me. I was under the impression that Android is essentially spyware for google.

You don't need a Google account to use an Android phone, and even if you choose to use one, you can turn off sensitive things like location and app tracking if you want.

I am not if Google (Facebook, etc.) always respect the location tracking preferences of users.

https://www.theverge.com/2018/11/27/18114111/google-location...

https://apnews.com/article/north-america-science-technology-...

https://www.businessinsider.com/google-location-data-violate...

All those articles seem to say if you leave App Tracking on, and use Google Maps, yes, Google will save your location. Someone who is anti-Google shouldn't be leaving any tracking on, and shouldn't be using Google's Apps.

If you have any evidence that someone who uses Android without a Google account and doesnt use Google Apps is still getting tracked by Google, I'd be interested to see it.

Apple also tracks your GPS trace just like Google Maps does, the difference is they don't seem to share it with you.

Apple Maps employees use these "anonymized" GPS traces to correct roads, show business hours, find new points of interest that are unmapped, etc

They don’t share it with you because they can’t. It’s anonymized.

The GPS trace is not practically anonymized, comparison with public and semipublic datasets would deanonymize a large portion of the GPS traces.

You don't have to use Android. You can use AOSP. You can use /e/. You can use LineageOS with microG. Even then, with microG, you don't have to use any Google services.