I chose iphone because a string of bugs left a sour taste in my mouth with android, and inertia locked me in. I definitely don’t want this level of locking it down, and I doubt a majority of iphone buyers want this.
I am also fully aware that if I want a mobile hackable device I will have to find another option and I am fine with it.
And by any measure, this already put me in the minority of minorities. I doubt most users would want a more open iphone if they are made aware of the trade ofs. Why should a businessman want to know more technical stuff in order to use his phone? just so we geeks would be able to sideload stuff? Well, he don't want it, he actively don't want the device to give him this freedom, because them he would have to be aware of boundaries that he didn't have to before, more cognitive workload for him for no value added.
And regardless, Apple has never hidden the nature of iOS. These consumers have clearly decided that the tradeoffs of the walled garden were acceptable, despite there being plenty of more open alternatives on the market in the early days of the iPhone.
Security, privacy, reliability and “it just works” was always a major selling point of the Macbook too.
The dichotomy between secure and locked and open but unsecure is a complete strawman. It is possible to be both open and secure. People would still be able to only install applications from the App Store even if the iPhone was less locked.
Apps on Mac OS X can absolutely screw up your machine. Adware in particular is a big problem for novice OS X users (speaking first hand here, having had to support these users). That’s an exceptionally rare occurrence on iOS.
I’m comfortable with the security model on macOS, but would be very concerned if that same model were applied to iPhoneOS, where users (myself included) carry significantly more private information.
On my phone, I want applications to have access to as little private information as possible, even if it’s detrimental to functionality. Call me a security nihilist, but security and privacy is by far my #1 overriding concern on mobile platforms, given the wealth of personally identifying information these devices gather.
More succinctly: the threat model on mobile devices is not the same as the threat model on personal computers. It’s inappropriate to apply the same security to both platforms.
1. Third party developers
2. A subset of power users
The broader end user appears to be quite satisfied with the status quo.
It’s a weird situation where anti-trust law (which ostensibly exists to protect the consumer) is likely in opposition to broader consumer sentiment.
It’s a very different situation than Microsoft’s antitrust in the 90s, where consumers strongly supported the antitrust actions.
Customers mostly didn't care about Microsoft antitrust trial in the 90s either. It was mostly affecting third party developpers and companies selling computers. The situation is not particularly dissimilar except Microsoft had a clear monopoly while Apple and Google are a duopoly and Apple is seen as a lifestyle brand to defend by a rabid minority of its customers while Microsoft was strictly seen as a tech company then.
It is also important to note that Internet Explorer was a VASTLY SUPERIOR PRODUCT to Netscape. So Microsoft competed, fair and square. The antitrust trial was just Netscape getting assmad that they were beaten at their own game.
No, we've heard plenty of people here on HN specifically say that's why they prefer it.
On one hand, the locked down iOS clearly hurts a lot of businesses and broader market competition.
On the other hand, Apple has been open and honest (and rather boastful) of the locked down nature of iOS since Day 1. Consumers have very clearly voted with their wallet time and time again that this system (and it’s tradeoffs) is the one they prefer.
To force iOS open is to undo the choices that consumers have made. But to leave iOS restricted is to harm broader business competitiveness.
You’re right that if Apple had marginal market share, this behaviour would not be problematic.
Broadly speaking, I’m not all that sympathetic to the plight of the big-name developers like Facebook and Match Group. They’ve collectively made users so cynical about privacy, security and the general trustworthiness of software that it’s prompted users to take refuge behind these hardened walled gardens. I just hate to see good independent developers have to be harmed as a consequence of that as well.