>Also, I recall a case where MacOS was asking Apple permission whenever the user wished to start an executable. This is nuts.
Not that nuts. It's intended to be able to blacklist malware and such and retroactively disable it, through notarization (basically, registering apps to Apple and them getting a kind of fingerprint).
They could have done it with a local cache (and they probably do in some capacity), but it would still need to ask/sync every now and then.
No, because you can make your phone work with other service providers. The dependence on the original hardware vendor is artificial.
> It's intended to be able to blacklist malware
Choice of blacklists, content filters etc. is also orthogonal to the vendor.
Yes. But then it wouldn't be a commercial commodity product, it would be more of a build-your-own DIY kit. Would it be as succesful?
>Choice of blacklists, content filters etc. is also orthogonal to the vendor.
Everything is orthogonal to the vendor, even choice of screen or disk.
But most people don't like choice, want something that mostly works as is. And even for those that do the optionally increases the product complexity, maintainance, and error condition space (integrated vs mix-and-match).
Plus, a few modular laptop and mobile phone designs never sold well.
Apple most definitely sells you a service, which is a managed computing platform. Alternatives exist. (And if they don’t, that’s not Apple’s problem.)
"Alternatives exists" sounds a lot like this fallacy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ergo_decedo
The world isn't as simple as: there are companies and they can sell whatever they like, and there are consumers and they can buy whatever they like.
Personally analytics don't bother me, I don't think they're a significant privacy issue. The service provider already knows almost everything you do with the service anyway, just as a requirement to provide the service. I don't believe that invasive regulation on the detailed behaviour and functions of a phone by governments is genuinely in the interests of users. I suspect that the detrimental effects would far outweigh the benefits, which would only be useful to a tiny fraction of users anyway.
But what confidence do you have if the product you bought is tethered to the original vendor? What if they decide to do something that makes you unable to use the product?
As for making the product unusable, they can do that anyway through OTA updates, which are applied at the user's discretion. If you think that's a problem then you should regulate that, not some other technical issues that may or may not be related.
Knowing is not the issue. The issue is they use that understanding to their advantage, not yours. Their duty is to maximize shareholder value, not your health, happiness, and well being.
I'm not saying don't use them. I am saying it's naive to trust so blindly.
The fact that an argument is superficially similar to an informal fallacy doesn't make the argument inherently fallacious. You can easily construct a variation of the same conversation which is structurally identical but is obviously not fallacious—
Critic: "I want a banana, but I don't like the texture."
Respondent: "If you don't like them, don't eat them."
Now let's turn that into an "alternatives exist" argument and replay—
Critic: "I demand a banana that I do like."
Respondent: "I understand your desire for a banana which suits you. However nobody is obligated to supply you with such a banana. Thankfully, alternatives do exist, such as the nectarine."
If you don't like that you can't buy an Apple branded dumbphone, and you have failed to convince Apple to make it for you, perhaps try lobbying your government? They could pass a law which requires smartphone makers to also sell dumbphones.
However in many cases I can only do that via an app, and apps are only available on iOS or Android. Your argument a based upon me being able to buy something from an alternative manufacturer, yet here we are. And I have to purchase Apple or Android to be able to function in society.
If Apple isn't going to follow open standards yet be the largest phone manufacturer then we are going to have to regulate them. You don't have to be the only company to be a monopoly.
If you did, what has any of that got to do with anything I wrote? How does your complaint relate to the issue of tracking?
Which open standard, specifically relevant to your ability to access your bank account and do your taxes, is Apple not following? And how is that relevant to concerns over privacy?
(Seriously, I’d like to engage with your argument but it seems like you’re confusing a discussion about the choice to buy a zero-tracking device with a unspecific complaint about standards.)
don't connect it to the internet.
It's not perfect, but at least I don't have to open the settings app each time.
To add insult to injury, when you automate WiFi and Bluetooth to turn off when you leave your home you need to manually affirm this action via a notification every time.
Super annoying.
Also, I recall a case where MacOS was asking Apple permission whenever the user wished to start an executable. This is nuts.