My windows phone would get unplugged at 9am, and I’d party until the sun came up. Pretty much everything was disabled by then (by the battery saver), but I could still call a cab. Everyone’s iPhone was an expensive paperweight until someone located a charger.
I do agree with your statement today. iPhones have gotten markedly better at being a phone first and computing device second. It’s still got a ways to go, but my phone isn’t dead at 2am with battery saver on.
Users that want the choice can choose. Devs that want the choice can choose. You can stay in your walled garden. And considering the uptake of alternate app stores on Android this seems like FUD to me.
If they had the option of going to a less restrictive store, they probably would, and they would do things I am not happy with there. That would be a loss for me.
I think you’re underestimating the power of defaults. App developers know that the vast majority of users will not install an alternative app store, even if the platform allows them to. For proof, see the Android app ecosystem. There has been no migration from Google’s Play Store. There isn’t even a hint of store fragmentation. What you see is: 1) some OEMs run their own stores, which mostly rehost apps from Google’s store. These stores are not meant to be installed by arbitrary Android devices, so there is no chance that a user might feel compelled to install the store on their device. 2) F-Droid exists to host FOSS apps, some of which violate some asinine Google policy and as such are exclusive, but most of which are also available on the Play Store.
Basically, we have strong real-world evidence that allowing sideloading does not create app store fragmentation. If you want to argue against sideloading from a security standpoint, you’d be better served with the “sideloading allows an abusive spouse to install a keylogger/tracker on their partner’s phone” narrative.
Where is the next generation of developers going to come from, if they grow up on iPads?
But I feel the same towards Apples stance on server hardware, which they discontinued over a decade ago: Even if servers don't make a sizeable profit on their own, they help ensure that developers can build large scale stuff inside the apple ecosystem.
Yet, that hasn't really been the hindrance I feel it ought to have been.
It's only shortsighted because they lock it down. It's got the same M1 hardware (if slightly less powerfull IIRC), and you can get an official keyboard+trackpad (and many third party ones), so the only thing that really keeps it from being a PC is their software installation policy that locks what can be run.[1]
1: Well, and also their policy of only allowing iOS to run on the hardware. This would be less of an issue if you could throw Linux, or even just Android on them. I'm sure Microsoft would be happy to ship an M1 ARM version of windows if they had hardware that would allow it to run.
I got an iPhone because it does what it does well, and doesn't do other things at all.
iPhones are slick, costly and secure, at the cost of not being malleable.
It's a trade-off I made at purchase time and I know most users of both iPhone and Android never considered that tradeoff.