It's not like Apple provides their platform and then if you don't want to use it then fine, you're on your own. They are actively hostile towards you doing something else.
If I leap off your analogy, which again doesn't really work, it's as if they throw tomatoes from their steakhouse as you go towards the pancake house.
Exactly. Which for me is a reason - no matter how much I hate Apple's tactics- to dismiss also this counter action. All of these entities just don't care for the users one way or the other
I explicitly stated that I wasn't siding with Apple, because I expected exactly this response. Your analogy can be bad without you being wrong in your opinion.
It's hard to follow this thought process. Somehow you claim that you are entitled to do business on one company's systems on terms that you decide. This doesn't make any sense what so ever. It sounds like those people who think they should own all the movies, music or software for free because they pay for an internet connection.
If you don't like the business proposition, just don't do business with Apple. Go make apps for Google Play store or Huawei or anything else.
I have a lot of issues with the things Apple chooses to do, but I think "user hostility" is an incorrect interpretation.
They have a very specific customer set in mind and they optimize for that really well. Its unfortunate that they don't cater to every market, but they definitely aren't "hostile" to their primary market.
Who is imposing views in this situation? You don't have to use Apple devices as your platform either. Most likely you use it because you benefit from it. Especially these companies that get huge profits from it. The platform was provided to them under certain conditions that they are free to reject at any moment and to walk away if they find that they will benefit more from that decision.
The car analogy doesn't help that much here; plenty of cars work in that fashion. Not the average consumer car of course, but again, even then a company is free to do so. Might hurt their business, where at Apple it's not a problem because they make plenty of money.
I think that is where part of the problem lies: you can choose to do something with the platform or you can leave it alone. Seeing it as an 'I must do something with the platform' is rather strange considering it is a private, non-public platform in the sense that it has an owner and the owner is free to make whatever rules they want to as long as it is within the boundaries of the law (i.e. you can't require use of a platform to be paid with organs :p ).
Regarding the rest of your comment, apple are NOT going after your freedom to run apps of your choosing (sidetone: kind of an oblique and overly dramatic way of phrasing it, don't you think?). They do instead offer a different model for the design of their mobile operating system that relies on stringent access control to both improve simplicity and security.
Listen, I'm fine with you not agreeing with how iOS is designed and how Apple acts a gatekeeper for distributing applications. It's not a perfect system, and it definitely has it's downsides. But you DO have the freedom to buy any tablet/smartphone you wish (or to not own one at all), and apple isn't doing anything to restrict said freedom.
Do you also not recognize the benefits of the way iOS works? I'm not even asking you to concede that the design has a net-positive. But you have to admit, there are SOME benefits of iOS' design. As a personal anecdote, I can tell you that my mom absolutely disliked personal computers (and digital cameras) and refused to use them for years. She started using an iPad maybe five years ago and she absolutely loves it, and I've never once had to remove malware from her computer, help her try to recover corrupted or lost photos, or any of the other mundane and often complicated tasks a 'regular' computer user would have to deal with. (This applies to macOS / windows / linux, etc).
I encourage to reconsider your position. I'm not saying that Apple doesn't have faults, and their implementations/decisions are perfect. But your statements are histrionic and you come across as a bit hysterical.
So for Apple "Oh, it's their platform, they can do whatever they want, you can choose not to use it" and for everyone else "They should not use their platform to $DoWhateverTheyWant this is the platform used by many people who expect...".
I get this impression that most Apple users are brainwashed morons who think that sucking on Apple's dick unconditionally is so much better than having Google/Microsoft/Facebook/whoever try to shove their respective dick up your ass.
All these companies are EXACTLY the same, they want you (the product) to use their service so they can sell you (the product) to whoever will pay for it.
Apple is just the best at getting you (the product) to pay the most for their services (hw and/or sw) to help them force out the competition so they are the only ones who can dictate their terms.
There are classes of customers that some businesses don't want. It's also rational to ward off customers who are pains in the ass.
As for the "it's MY iPhone argument", I sympathize with it, but I see the other side of the argument too: I also want companies to be free to create any reasonable business model they'd like. Apple very specifically and deliberately didn't sell you an iPhone as a general-purpose computing platform you could do anything you want with, and you can't claim that you bought it expecting to use it as a Linux box.
The problem with the argument given is that it basically gives up to Apple because it thinks that the situation that Apple provides is the best default experience for the majority of users. It probably is, but the problem is that 1. Apple doesn’t really explain any of this stuff anywhere so a technical user may read about it and make an informed decision nor 2. do they really provide a way to alter the process to use someone who isn’t Apple: just because they are a good default shouldn’t mean they should be the only provider that your computer will ever trust. And I think 3. is anger that a system Apple put in place failed in an entirely foreseeable fashion and essentially knocked a bunch of people’s livelihoods offline without warning or explanation and people are sick and tired of their things breaking for opaque “security” reasons.
If you don't like the App Store, don't use an iPhone, it's simple as that. They're free to manage their platform in a way they feel appropriate. You're free to use or not use that platform.
---
I'm not necessarily saying I think Apple is in the right, but your argument doesn't hold because it works equally well when applied at a higher level, which runs counter to your point.
You appear to be arguing that we shouldn't complain that Apple's closed platform is obnoxious, or hate Steve Jobs for being an anti-programmer jerk, or encourage people to avoid Apple. Nobody said that some existing legal or moral authority should force Apple to treat us nice.
Because regardless of which service they choose to use, Apple controls the platform they’re running on in every case. They actually don’t have a meaningful choice in that area.
Imagine it was Amazon in this situation. Or Microsoft. Or Google. Or, gasp, Facebook. Where 90% of teens were using a hardware and software platform made by one company. Seems like a problem, right?
Imagine how much people would be freaking out if Facebook came out with a phone and OS and had 90% of teens using it. The wailing and gnashing of teeth could be heard from the Moon.
Imagine if it was a terrible platform, and there was a bigger, cheaper, more sideloadable competitor you could easily use instead. Why would you spend so much time trying to get the courts to force Apple to let you into the ecosystem without following their rules? Why wouldn't you simply use the platform that already does all the things you say you want?
Wow, I had no idea I would stir up the beehive so much! Perhaps I was a bit dramatic in my presentation. The point I'm trying to make isn't that Apple, Google, etc are evil nor am I saying their products aren't good. The problem is things like DRM, net neutrality, software patents, privacy, developer and user rights, taking away control of information from users and throwing it in the cloud. THEY WANT TO CONTROL YOU SO THEY CAN CONTROL THEIR REVENUE STREAM AND ENACT PROPRIETARY LOCKIN! They would rather do that than have real competition! It's the Microsoft business model with sexier marketing. What happens when files go away -- how do I backup my data? Is my data even physically on my device? Is it located at some server at one of Apple's data centers? Are they securely storing it? Will I have access to it if they go out of business? Similiarly as a developer, how come there is no option for me to get my app onto the iPhone without being subject to Apple's App Store submission process? Sure, users may not notice, but they've created a major barrier to market. The excuse is that "oh we need to make sure it's user friendly and high quality", but we've seen often that they pull apps because they compete with something they're doing or they suddenly don't like the UI because it messes with Steve's vision of how your computer should behave.
I don't think having open technologies and easy to use technologies is mutually exclusive. Android is a great counterexample to iOS. For DIYers on Hacker News, another great example is Arduino. Also, if you haven't taken a look at a Linux distribution in years (or ever) like Ubuntu, you really should try it out. Not only is it free and open, but it provides (in my opinion) an easier and aesthically superior experience to Windows/Mac and is a way better option for 90% of users that do simple things like listen to music, watch videos, take pictures, and surf the web.
As one other person posted, they aren't trying to be evil, but they want to nickel and dime you at every step. They don't want you installing a more open OS on your device because they cannot control the experience (I gave the example of tethering in my original post). What scares them is giving you options that allow you to migrate away from their platform. A lot of people said "hey that's just business", but there are other business models than "proprietary lockin" that gives users flexibility and choice as well as generate profits for the company.
I'll never understand why companies make such customer hostile decisions.
I think it's because Apple more or less proved that the walled garden approach can be wildly successful and everyone is trying to copy them. Seems however that they are the only ones to have success with it.
It's not like Apple provides their platform and then if you don't want to use it then fine, you're on your own. They are actively hostile towards you doing something else.
If I leap off your analogy, which again doesn't really work, it's as if they throw tomatoes from their steakhouse as you go towards the pancake house.
reply