But I do think you should be able to do whatever you want with what you purchased. I just don’t think that includes forcing them, or using the government to force them, to make changes to their software to suit you.
So yes run your own OS, but if you bought a product and expect its software to do things its creators are clear it doesn’t do, then that’s on you.
That's the point being argued here. They doing all they can to not let this happen. You are saying as if there's still an option to do this.
It gets even worse, because inside the OS, you are their lap dog. They are enforcing options to curb any form of competition. Technology is being forcefully crippled so they can resort monopolistic forms of control.
And with the other hand they teach you to like it in a paternalistic way.
Big Tech have a tremendous power all over the world. Lack of regulation and civil rights enforcement is taking us into a era o digital feudalism..
So its not just about their rights to let Apple strip their rights, but the rights of us all.
It's about our future, because governments are getting weaker and big tech companies are start to take over with power that transcend territory.
So its our duty, to not let this happen, because they are not really seeing, being selfish and thinking about their own convenience.
The worst part is that, it will not change anything to them, but the marketing machinery whisper all the time how this is bad for them, making they fear any sort of change in that direction.
I don't want to force them to make changes! I want to force them to not make changes. These devices are not locked down by default, the manufacturer implements these locked down restrictions in software manually. Rip that out and I'll be happy.
I'd expect a computer to compute, whether it's scheduled by Windows, Linux, or iOS; whether Apple thinks I should install a software package or not. It should compute what I want it to, after all, it's using the electricity that I paid for.
"Imagine someone was kidnapped against their will, and once we were to discuss the rights of the person being kidnapped the person kidnapped with stockholm syndrome have argued in favor of the kidnapper, as if it was within his rights to break its own rights."
1. Apple did not kidnap anyone here. Their customers _voluntarily_ buy Apple products. Don't like Apple's products? Do not buy them. Pretty simple stuff.
2. The government forcing Apple to do certain things is closer to your kidnapping argument. Apple doesn't want to relinquish software control on the devices they make. That is their right. They invented it, created it, and marketed it. Just because they are popular doesn't give anyone the right to control them.
3. You have the right to not buy Apple products.
Don't like iPhone/iOS? Don't buy it, go and buy Android. Simple as that.
That's a completely disingenuous response to any criticism. I'm allowed to dislike and like features of both iOS and Android. Anything I don't like shouldn't just be disregarded with 'Just get an Android'. iOS isn't perfect, and wanting it to improve is not wrong.
Two choices is not enough. And, there are more choices than these 2. AltStore being an example.
Google has a "free/open" version you can use if you like and also on their more restricted version allows you a fair amount of freedom.
Apple takes a more constrained approach and assumes that if you are purchasing the product you want to live within the ecosystem it supplies. No effort is made to allow you to move out of that ecosystem even though this may be possible through the exploitation of software/system bugs. Once those bugs have been identified, Apple feels it has a responsibility to lock down those loopholes in the name of creating a more secure system.
This can (and maybe should) be interpreted as Apple restricting your rights to jail break the system. Others interpret this as a responsible company maintaining a secure system.
The question is if Apple allowed side loading of software would that, as per their current claim, reduce the security of the entire system? I don't think that there should be any debate on this. Assuming Apple software has bugs, then allowing side loading of potentially compromised software inevitably increases the attack service available to a malicious actor. The OS now has to defend against untrusted loaded software, not only external network based attacks. Not only that, I would assume people would still want random software to be able to access their iCloud drive and other apple shared infrastructure, even more attack surface.
My feeling is that for most people with Apple devices, the devices are pretty much working as they desire and in a way that is easier (and potentially more secure) the alternative. Are there things that people don't like, sure, but the pain is lower than the pain of the alternative.
I don't think most people care a toss about the ability to side load apps, there are millions of apps on the ios store, more than can be found. The only people who don't like it are the ones who are having to comply with Apples rules and are missing out of $$$ because of it.
That's an understatement. They actively deny you the possibility of moving out of their ecosystem. They disallow mentioning alternative payment systems in applications, FFS. If that isn't anti-competitive, I don't know what is.
I got Apple devices, and I've been worried the past 10+ years that macOS (or Mac OS X as it was called) is moving towards the closed down iOS platform. Slowly but surely, its getting done. But remember: go sloooowwwww. They won't notice it then, less resistance.
Imagine someone was kidnapped against their will, and once we were to discuss the rights of the person being kidnapped the person kidnapped with stockholm syndrome have argued in favor of the kidnapper, as if it was within his rights to break its own rights.
Because this is what you are advocating here. That a company should have the right even to break your rights because they are a "good willing actor" or that they are doing it thinking in your well being (which you are inclined to think with tons of well crafted and manipulative propaganda towards this goal).
And its even worse because, its not the third party that its at fault according to your point of view, but the government that is trespassing by trying to force with laws, approved in a democratic regime, that your rights have to be respected and there are limits into how they can limit you or forbid what you can do with something that you bought and therefore its your property.