That's not their problem.
Cars are not phones, and your analogy here is missing the point.
No one should have to make hardware modifications because they want to put code on their computer without paying Apple for the privilege.
It's not more complicated than that. As I said, you can still have your device in nanny mode if you need it.
Step two: Your car breaks down, because everything in the engine is connected and finely tuned by the microsecond to function as one integral unit.
Step three: Blame Toyota and petition the EU to force Toyota to help you bore out your cylinder.
That's pretty much the equivalent. You hackers already have hundreds of Linux distros that are destroyed-on-deilvery because of the endless tinkering and programmer-first mindset. There's Android, Windows, and a plethora of other systems for you.
Why can't we have at least one computer (Mac) and one phone (iPhone) that is not destroyed by FOSS and corporate people, and is actually useful for normal people who want to get things done?
I don't get it. Why don't you direct your efforts into fixing Linux or Android? Then you wouldn't have to think about Apple and their devices.
No, it isn't. Your example is not analogous at all.
No one wanting to sideload is talking about blaming Apple for anything, this is purely an invented argument because your excuse of vulnerable family members doesn't hold up.
> You hackers already have hundreds of Linux distros that are destroyed-on-deilvery because of the endless tinkering and programmer-first mindset. There's Android, Windows, and a plethora of other systems for you.
Irrelevant.
An iPhone is a computer, a far more general purpose computer as opposed to something like a playstation (although I believe that should be open enough that people can put Linux on it as with the PS3).
It's simply unacceptable that a manufacturer dictates the code we can run on hardware we paid for. That's it.
> Why can't we have at least one computer (Mac) and one phone (iPhone) that is not destroyed by FOSS and corporate people
Giving people extra freedom isn't 'destroying' anything. Your concerns are incredibly misplaced.
> and is actually useful for normal people who want to get things done?
Your iPhone won't be any less useful if people can sideload apps on it. Your concerns are incredibly misplaced.
> I don't get it. Why don't you direct your efforts into fixing Linux or Android? Then you wouldn't have to think about Apple and their devices.
People are not just randomly wanting to tinker, they want to get full functionality out of the hardware they already paid for.
> the hardware they already paid for.
There's no rule saying you are only allowed to have one piece of hardware. You can also buy an Android phone for cheap for your uses where you find iOS lacking.
There is always an assumption here on HN that you are only allowed one of anything, and that you have to stick to that for life. Whether that is software or hardware. I have Android devices and Apple devices, because even though Android is destroyed as an operating system, there are some hardware features that Apple doesn't offer.
I assume you've already heard the argument that nobody is forced to buy Apple hardware, so I'll skip that. Just remember that you can have two phones if you want, or as many as you please.
I. Don't. Care.
If I have an iPhone, I should have the right to run whatever the hell I want on it. I own it. That I can buy other phones is completely irrelevant - the point is all hardware for devices like this should be unrestricted to the consumer, period.
You've yet to give a convincing counter-argument as to why.
So far your attempts have consisted of:
- My naive family member might be tricked
- Claiming allowing sideloading will ruin the platform for 'normal' people
- Now claiming it's not an issue because I can buy an alternative
Do you have any argument that can actually defend why someone shouldn't be able to put whatever OS or apps they want on a computer they bought?
What are you going to do about it? Are you going to kick Tim Cook's ass?
> - My naive family member might be tricked
That was probably somebody else, I didn't say that.
> - Claiming allowing sideloading will ruin the platform for 'normal' people
The proof is in the pudding: Every other platform is destroyed, because they are made chiefly for corporate and for programmers. Since there is one platform that is actually good, among hundreds of alternatives, they probably know what they're doing and should continue doing that.
> Do you have any argument that can actually defend why someone shouldn't be able to put whatever OS or apps they want on a computer they bought?
You can put whatever OS or apps on any device from Apple, if you have the skills. If not, buy something else. Or try to kick Tim Cook in the ass.
No, just wait for the EU to force Apple to do something since the US is too busy failing at more basic things.
This is also a really weird response. I was just pointing out your previous reply was a red herring, not any kind of actual argument.
> That was probably somebody else, I didn't say that.
Nah, it was you, right here[1] where you said "A big part of the reason I use Apple products is that they protect not only me, but my family who don't know what the implications of sideloading are."
> The proof is in the pudding: Every other platform is destroyed
Far from it. What a ridiculous claim.
> You can put whatever OS or apps on any device from Apple, if you have the skills.
No, because Apple makes it too hard. There has to be a specific kind of vulnerability and there isn't always.
> Or try to kick Tim Cook in the ass.
Or root for the EU. And honestly users like you are more of a problem than Cook will ever be.
The reason I inquired for your intentions regarding Mr Cook's backside is that in all these comments, you sound exactly like Steve Jobs shouting down his dictation.
Not in the least.
I said I don't care in response to your saying I could but an alternate phone. That's not an argument in response to what I said, it's a red herring, a distraction, a whataboutism, and a completely irrelevant point. That's why I said I don't care, and why you asking "what I was going to do about it, kick Cook's ass" is just silly and irrelevant.
You mentioned Cook's ass because you lost track of the context of the conversation and didn't have any actual argument. Aside from the one you cut short to drink beer that I didn't get to see, I guess.
Because it's unreasonable for any manufacturer to have that much control over how end users use their devices.
> A big part of the reason I use Apple products is that they protect not only me, but my family who don't know what the implications of sideloading are.
You can still use devices in nanny mode if needed. If your relatives can be talked into sideloading an app and bypassing the inevitable big scary warnings, they can be talked into other stuff equally as dangerous.