That's ridiculous. The iPhone was a huge improvement over the status quo, but there are plenty of phones today that are comparable, if not better.
All of the goals Jobs mentioned in the article could be achieved just as easily by imposing those restrictions on the App Store, but still allowing users to install apps on their own. Apple's policies are harmful to its users compared to the alternatives.
With that said, a car that couldn't drive on rural roads would make sense if it drove itself, but required infrastructure that wasn't universal.
The same could be said about 3rd party car mechanics that have MUCH HIGHER stakes (your life behind the wheel), yet it is illegal for car manufacturers to ban someone else from fixing your car. But Apple zealots act like a ending a monopoly on app installation will ruin everything.
If the warning box says THIS IS A BIG SECURITY RISK and you click anyway it's your own choice, but a choice given in every single product and market created by man. A stupid phone is not where you draw the line and give it up.
“ Why should you be allowed to run whatever you want on your MacBook but not on your phone?”
This was simply the question I was trying to answer. No more.
My personal feeling, however, is that, if there is a suitable alternative, people should be allowed to buy a device knowing the limitations (artificial or not).
Nobody is surprised that there isn't an alternative App Store an iPhone or iPad. If that's important to folks, they have plenty of Android or Microsoft alternatives.
It feels a lot to me like people buy a blue car, then complain that it's not a red car. I honestly don't understand why people don't just buy the red car in the first place.
I'm sure this comment will get downvoted and dunked on, but I agree and I would be that if Apple is forced to make changes like these, many peoples' only experience of it would be their iPhone/Apple Watch/etc getting worse.
Some examples:
- A lot of these changes are like mandating that cars have a manual transmission option. Sure, there are plenty of people that love the control, but there are many, many more that appreciate not having to deal with it.
- Every dollar and engineering hour that Apple spends complying with these new requirements is time they won't spend on things people actually want, as well as increasing the surface area for bugs and security holes.
- Apple is the intermediary between other companies like FB, Google, ad networks, data harvesting, government apps, etc. They can't do things on my phone because Apple forbids it. The more Apple is forced to open up, the less protection I have from other powerful players in the tech market.
- Every place where Apple is forced to open up is a place where there's a choice that many users didn't ask for but will have to make (e.g. default browser).
- I've never had to help a relative with their phone. I've had many of them come to me for help with their computers. Their and my experience with computing platforms is worse without the guardrails
I think many computer savvy people don't realize how freeing and liberating it is for normal people to have an "appliance" computer.
I very much want Apple to allow proper sideloading on iOS and iPadOS without any sort of developer account requirements that they currently impose and without any sort of weird workarounds to refresh certificates like altstore [1]. I think Apple absolutely should change their policy here because it is something I find unattractive about their devices and their devices are worse than they should be because of it.
With that being said, your analogies don't actually hold up at all.
> People paid good money for their phones, and so they must be free to use them as they see fit.
Apple doesn't hide its policies from its customers and while some people may be ignorant to them, it doesn't change the fact that it's not hidden away. You're not tricked into buying an iPhone thinking you'll be able to install any software you want on it. Anyone that cares enough to want to do so is also fully capable of looking this information up and understanding that they can't (even if they really want to).
> To me this sounds like buying a car that's restricted from entering Germany
It's more like you buy a car knowing fully well that it doesn't run Spotify on its computer then buying it anyway, then being upset that it doesn't run spotify. I get that your point is more that a car's purpose to drive places and an iPhone is a computer so its purpose is to compute things, but even a car imposes restrictions on its use with things like a governor to prevent you going over a certain speed. If you want a car without that restriction you buy one without it.
> or buying a fruit processor that forbids you to blend fruit
If anyone bought a fruit processor that doesn't blend fruit, that's kind of on them. But given that this were hypothetically possible, the person wouldn't have to buy that fruit processor because they should know before hand that that particular one doesn't blend fruit.
Jobs is not a control freak. You can put whatever you like on YOUR iPhone. What you can't do is put whatever you like on someone else's iPhone. In that case, Apple insists that you play by their rules, so that their customers can have confidence that the software they buy isn't going to break their wonderful new iPhone. Apple is essentially offering a service to people where Apple evaluates the technical qualities of software so that users don't have to.
If you can't get passed Apple's rules, why should you care? Write for another platform then. If your idea is so hot, you are going to have loads of users anyway. People may even buy the phone you support, just to have your software.
Of course, if what you really wanted was an easy ride on Apple's coattails, I have bad news for you - Apple never gives anyone an easy ride on their coattails... But I'm hardly going to cry a river for you.
The implication that restricting user freedom to the degree that Apple does is as vital as the seatbelt in your car is hilarious to me. A better analogy would be "how come my Apple car can only drive on Apple-owned toll roads but every other car can drive wherever it wants?"
“User freedom” doesn’t work in this argument. Apple’s restrictive App Store is a big reason of why I use iPhones and why I recommend them to most people who ask.
There are effectively only two smartphone platforms available to users, and destroying one of the only meaningful differences between the platforms in the name of “user choice” is nothing if not ironic.
Apple dictates the apps can you use and restricts the OS. It's not a matter of signed packages and security, but of corporate domination of technology and restriction of use of a hardware device you legitimately own. Would you buy a PC that restricts what OS and software you can run on it? But when it comes to smart phone and tablets, we except this. Blocking nefarious apps is one thing, having absolute control of what your computer and or smartphone can run (yes smartphones are just portable computers)is a monopoly. We wouldn't except this in any other industry. If Ford decided that you cant modify, improve or repair their products based on a restrictive license you had to agree to on purchase, you probably wouldn't buy a car from them. In the tech or media industries this is acceptable. Why should we accept a "walled garden" on smart phones when we own the hardware? If it were any other industry, people would be outraged.
This stood out to me too. It's harsh, but true. I love that Apple is making computing devices more accessible to people, and I think that's a good thing. But I wish they weren't also making those very same devices more closed and controlled. Imagine if all of the original personal computers were as locked down as the iPhone is, in terms of being able to tweak/customize it, create and distribute software for it, or find other people's software for it. It's definitely a regressive step and I don't see why we can't have beautiful industrial design, slick software interfaces and more easy, open-access under the hood for users that want to get in there.
Apple is perfectly capable of having a phone that runs your own software with minimal trade offs, they just don’t want to because they’re not about empowering users but about creating a class of dependent consumers.
“The problem is buying an iphone means i should be able to do whatever i want with it later on, including install additional software”
That’s an opinion. Apple has another one, and, AFAIK, doesn’t advertise that as a feature of their product.
Some people argue Apple shouldn’t be allowed to sell such a product, but I don’t know of legal precedents for that (could be my lack of knowledge in this, of course)
Certainly, the same situation exists for game consoles and, to a lesser extent because nobody can install additional software on them, cars, toasters, etc. (Cars may be even more similar. Tesla doesn’t give you the means to run your own self driving software on the hardware you bought, do they?)
You're making it seem like it's a travesty that Apple doesn't allow you to do whatever you want with your phone, but you're dodging everyone who correctly points out that Apple is far and away in the minority of smartphones in the world. People who want to run whatever they want on a mobile device have their choice: they can buy Android phones and sideload APKs, or buy experimental cutting edge devices running Linux. If anything, the example you cite - that of Apple removing apps in Russia or China - should be in your favour: if people in Russia and China want to run apps without their Government's approval, they should not buy iPhones, thereby hurting Apple's position in the market. Those who don't clearly don't care, and who are you to decide what they should care about?
I really don't care about having full control over my device as long as my device doesn't stop me from doing any critical function.
Life is too complex and there is too much going on and too much to figure out and too many demands on my time, I just want to pick up a device, use it for what i need and then put it away. I don't want to spend hours tinkering to get every little thing the way i want it, i'm happy to outsource that to someone that knows what they are doing and in return I get a device that just works.
Now we are going to end up with a bunch of app stores, which is horrible and annoying to manage on a phone, side loading apps, apps requiring certain app stores so you have to download that app store just to get it and then apps that don't meet the standards that Apple have set.
If you don't like that, you could have bought an Android, but I was happy with it, I want my devices to get out of my way.
It doesn’t matter why I bought one. Car manufactures can’t just do whatever they want. They have to follow rules.
What’s wrong with people wanting Apple and Google to follow some rules?
Having a rule that all smartphones should allow sideloading would not be the end of the world for people who like Apple’s app store. Those people would still have the choice to us it.
What would you rather be the case then? Let's say Apple don't restrict what you can do on your device, what does that look like? What do you think Apple should do differently, specifically?
It's not an exclusive choice, in an ideal world we'd have apples app store lockdown AND the ability to throw caution to the wind and run whatever we want.
If it was as limited as you say, I would agree, just use a different product. That's what I've done for years by using Android.
However this philosophy is being extended to nearly everything nowadays. Apple is a leader and has proven that extreme authoritarian and lockdown works and few people will complain. As a result, nearly every company that makes mainstream products just follows their lead. For example the removal of a headphone jack, after which basically all Android makers (even OnePlus) followed suit.
Despite the much held opinion on HN of the lockdown beinga feature rather than a bug, the vast majority of people I talk to just use apple because the hardware is nice and everyone else uses them and there is social stigma around being a "green bubble". I don't think Apple's success is because of the draconian policies.
The reason why I care so much and think this ideology is harmful is not because I want to side load an iphone. If apple were just a niche product maker, then I couldn't care less what they do. Unfortunately that is not the case. What apple does directly affects me even though I don't buy apple products.
All of the goals Jobs mentioned in the article could be achieved just as easily by imposing those restrictions on the App Store, but still allowing users to install apps on their own. Apple's policies are harmful to its users compared to the alternatives.
With that said, a car that couldn't drive on rural roads would make sense if it drove itself, but required infrastructure that wasn't universal.
reply