In a pure technical sense, you're right, a mobile phone's computer doesn't have to be locked down such that the manufacturer like Apple controls the subsequent financial transactions on it.

Instead of technical reasons, what happened was Apple taking advantage of historical control of cellphones by the carriers that was in place before Apple flipped the relationship around in 2007:

- (1) before 2007, the cell carriers like AT&T and Verizon controlled what kind of software could be on the Palm Treo, Blackberry, Motorola, etc.

- (2) Apple showed an iPhone prototype to Cingular/AT&T that impressed them so much that they were willing to give up software platform control to Apple. This was the first time a phone manufacturer had the leverage to do this. Cingular was lagging behind Verizon so that's why Cingular was willing to play ball and relinquish control.

- (3) after 2007, Apple now controls the phone's software ecosystem with their App Store restrictions and it's a power they want to keep. In their mind, they feel justified since they are the ones who spent money on developing the phone and they're allowing more "freedom" of 3rd-party software than the carriers did.

Apple's perspective is that its smartphones are not "open" computers like the IBM PC and Macbooks. Instead, it's the "closed" computers like the Sony PlayStation.

Another "closed" computer is the AMD Ryzen + Linux system in Tesla's infotainment system. There is no "Tesla app store" for it. Instead, a 3rd-party app like Spotify has to forge a formal contractual partnership with Tesla to get integrated into the car's software. Some stories about that: https://www.google.com/search?q=spotify+signs+partnership+wi...

Likewise, is there any technical reason why Tesla can't let you sideload any app on the car? No. But Tesla doesn't let you.

Cars are effectively bullets, they can kill people, so you can't just install anything in a car. I'm sure there's plenty of laws requiring Tesla and other car manufacturers to lock down car software.

(Just like there are laws requiring phone manufacturers to lock down phones - you can't just install an app that lets you override the GSM protocol and mess with the spectrum, not even on Android!)

All that to say that if things are properly compartmentalized there is no danger in letting the user install any software he desires.

I'd like to agree, but that's a big "if". The more I learn, the less I trust any of these things I use continuously.

Of course, Apple are also the ones who extended smartphones to a mass-market product, as before then devices like the Centro were very niche.

It's worth watching "Blackberry" (2023) to see an instance of this in the style of a documentary drama.

But if it was a smartphone then it allowed third party apps to be installed without restriction. However, the OS itself might have been heavily controlled and/or modified by the carrier. It was common that say, Microsoft, would release an OS update and then that OS update goes to the carrier for testing and modification and then sometime later you get it. Apple, of course, was not interested in participating in that system.

Part of the early success of Android was that being an open platform meant that carriers retained a huge amount of control and they would release heavily customized carrier-specific phones.

PlayStation is seen by most people as an appliance for playing video games. Phones, on the other hand, are explicitly general-purpose computers. The iPhone is literally the only case of a "closed" general-purpose computer in this entire universe.

But it's 2024.

I grew up on the App Store, maybe I'm just old and cranky at 35. But my guess is 95% of people cry in pain when they see a wall of text about how Verizon charged for J2ME apps in 2004, therefore iPhones iPads Apple Watches Vision Pros are special exemptions and Apple should be able to bill "$0.50 per install per year." whenever a binary is installed on a device you paid for. There's 0 reason for it.

Anyone is free to enter the hardware market with an open platform. There are some devices for sale which allow this. But they're enormously unpopular.

It's not really any different in my mind than phones with more battery life, a better camera, or any other product mix.

But the situation here is that there is now an actual law mandating that no, you're not to allowed host an app store on your phone OS without allowing alternative app stores.

For an exaggerated analogy, you can't make a car without seatbelts and tell consumers that if they value safety they should purchase a different brand of car.

Too late. It already is. Which makes all these restrictions on what you can and can't do with it stupid especially if its gonna sell for an amount of money nearly equal to reasonably spec'ed laptop.

Contrast with, say, Adobe, which makes computer software not distributed through any App store and is a $278 billion company.

Android is fully open. No one is making you use Google services. You can, in fact, buy a Pixel and simply uninstall the Play Store. As a developer, you can distribute your app without any Google involvement whatsoever.

It's true however that you can use microG to replace Google Services, but even then some banks will block your account upon doing that (happened to me).

Granted, this really is a completely different point to what you were discussing, and I do agree with you. But, if we want truly open ecosystems, we need standards that ensure the authenticity of the user. Unfortunately, that gets distopian fast.

I really don't know what to think of all of this.

This is on the Pinephone Pro btw.

That you then can't really do anything with either because of the super limited HW support (due to only using "free" drivers) or because they're so slow you just give up in frustration. Or lack of apps.

At least in the case of the Librem 5 its wildly overpriced for what you actually get (if you ever actually get it that is).

If you think the hardware is slow, have a look at SXMo.

> if you ever actually get it that is

They've been delivering the phones within 10 days since a long tome already. Sent from my Librem 5.

Let's suppose that I still use Windows, which was installed on that laptop. I'm using Debian instead, but let's forget about it. Anyway, HP probably paid Microsoft for the OS. That's all that should be. I don't see any reason for me to pay Microsoft.

Now, let's suppose that both HP and Microsoft switch to a subscription model where the laptop costs some xx Euro per month and for the OS. Then it's different, I would think if I want to enter into that relationship and if I do then I would be OK for them "to keep their finger in the pie".

I won't use Windows anyway and I probably won't buy a subscription based computer. On the other side that would make me upgrade more often. It's more or less what some people do when selling their Mac to buy a new one. Sometimes the new one is not that good though.

If so, why did Google feel the need to bribe developers to keep their apps on the Play store?

https://www.theverge.com/2021/8/19/22632818/google-project-h...

I guess 2010's Google didn't want any trace of a popular gaming store to take over, given that we now know F2P mobile games are 70% of the app store revenue (and I'm sure it's similar to Google). If EA made the supposed Steam of Android and most games chose to focus on the EA store, that's a huge cut into Google revenue, even if most other apps would still be on the play store. So better not to risk it at all.

We all had to pay the licensing fee for the software. For many of us, a fee is paid yearly to the OS developer on our behalf. Just because the fee is not explicitly placed against our own debit/credit card balances doesn't mean a fee isn't being paid.

But even the fee argument misses the point. Myself and others are not asking that Apple not charge a fee. My feeling was that 30% on App revenue for example was too much. Given that the charges are now being itemized out in the open a bit better, do I still believe the fee was too high? I cautiously respond 'yes'. But I can now see where I might have been mistaken about what the amalgamation of the costs incurred to run this thing look like.

I guess all I really wanted was transparency. Let's get it all on the table and see what's what. Maybe 30% is a good deal? Maybe it's not? I don't know if you don't tell me everything that went into that. Consumers should be informed, that's probably more what I believe now. I no longer believe we should change the model before we get a better idea of what the costs will be going forward. That could bankrupt a lot of small devs right now.

On the other hand, I'm old enough to remember when operating system upgrades were around 10% of the price of the original computer (for each upgrade, about once per year but not at all regular), and when I couldn't afford a compiler.

They think of them far more like consoles or appliances.

And the people that want pocketable computers have plenty of options.

The PC is “the one that got away” in fishing parlance.

Personally I see the broader trend towards highly-restricted corporate-controlled hardware (of all types) as something explicitly detrimental that we should push back on wherever possible.

Lockdown: The coming war on general-purpose computing

https://boingboing.net/2012/01/10/lockdown.html

or watch the speech: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kFY0a_VOGbE

Battery life. Simple as that.

Personal computers are the special case where you don’t have to pay the platform provider - there are far more phones+consoles+set top boxes than computers

Apple was very explicit from day one and anyone who buys an iOS device knows exactly what they are going to get.