I get the argument, but it falls flat for me. Consoles are basically appliances with a primarily singular purpose: video games. Smart phones, in my opinion, are general purpose computers that should be treated differently. Games are a small subset of what people use smart phones for.
I, and a lot of other people, buy iPhones specifically because they are not Androids - it's hard to break them, install something horrible, etc. It's also why I recommend iPhones to older folk, like my mom, and from what I can tell, the need for me to help them out has decreased a ton since they stopped using Androids.
So why are you pushing for everything to have to be a general purpose computer? Why can't there be one phone maker that caters to those who don't want something like that? Why can't you just use Android, which is that? I just find it incredibly unfair that everything has to be the same for some odd reason for people who keep pushing for these things.
I feel like this "console" vs. "general computer" distinction is something Apple invented for the sake of their legal argument, and people are just accepting it as a thing. There's no reason why you can't have a console that allows sideloading. In fact, I have one: the Playdate. It has an on-device app store, but if I want I can also install any app manually. Most users who have a Playdate will only ever use the app store--they will get a curated set of apps, and every game purchase will have a cut taken by Playdate. It's sticky because it's the most convenient, and it's already on the device. This is the "safe" experience that the average user wants. But if you want to do your own thing and install some other app you found on the internet, you can! You can also run your own apps that you write!
I don't think or care about any of this. But my anecdotal evidence of seeing my elderly family members requiring a lot less help to clean their phones from unwanted spamware/adware that is crippling the device performance has gone down noticeably since the move from Android to iPhone. And I care a lot about that. All that power of Android is great for the Hacker News crowd, not so great for regular people who might not be very tech savvy.
> So why are you pushing for everything to have to be a general purpose computer?
Not the parent commenter, but I suppose that the main problem is that there is a duopoly. So either they should be forced to make general-purpose computers (so they can be made to do what the user wants), or there should be more competition, so you can have your locked-down computer, and I can have my general purpose computer.
What is preventing more companies from creating more mobile operating systems? Are they hamstrung by efforts from the duopoly to keep them down? Or is it just hard? If the latter, should government take action to help foster their creation, like tax breaks?
Microsoft tried doing this with Windows phone, but they couldn't get traction among developers, which made their OS unattractive to end users, which made it unattractive to developers, which made it unattractive ...
Users don't just want a phone, they want a phone that can run all their apps. Developers only publish their apps to the App Store and Google Play, if you want to run the apps that your users want, you need to interface with one of those. This is even harder than the "Linux on the desktop" problem. If you have a good web browser, good support for .exe files (via Wine) and apps that can support most of the file formats users need (notably Microsoft Office files), you have a desktop OS that can replace Windows for most users, no cooperation from Microsoft or third-party developers necessary. You can't do that on mobile, even if you design a perfect iOS or Android emulator, users still won't be able to download any apps unless you get access to a store.
There's nothing stopping a company from making such a phone. The pixel phones from google can probably already boot a regular linux kernel for example if you unlock the bootloader. Then we'd need documentation to be able to actually write drivers. Another part of the problem is how fast the tech is moving outside of the iphones, which makes it harder for anybody to focus on specific hardware.
Why can't you simply download everything from the App Store and avoid sideloading?
If enough people refuse to sideload, developers will continue to provide the App Store as an option. Then you can pay Apple for their curation services if you find those services valuable, and other people won't be forced to pay.
Why can’t I recommend a device to my elderly parents where I don’t have to worry about social media apps that trick them into installing apps from outside Apple’s App Store? Apps which are then free to ignore Apple’s guidelines and policies and other anti-deceptive policies?
Apple’s App Store review may not be perfect but Apple trying to police apps to make them adhere to some guidelines is better than nothing.
Remember with Facebook pushed a sneaky VPN as part of their iOS app so they could better track users?
> social media apps that trick them into installing apps from outside Apple’s App Store
Apple could make this against the terms of service for App Store apps, and ban any apps that violate them. If the sideloading option exists, then Apple should be free to regulate the behavior of in-App Store behavior more strictly.
You can't trust Apple to protect your elderly parents from being tricked. There are so many stories of people (even children) who unknowingly spent thousands of dollars on the App Store and in app purchases.
Compared to that, a Facebook app with better tracking is trivial.
> So why are you pushing for everything to have to be a general purpose computer?
They are already general purpose computers that have been locked down.
I strongly believe users should be able to own their devices no matter what kind. While users should be able to keep those devices locked down if they choose, they should also be able to unlock them and run any software or OS they choose.
I think this applies to consoles just as much as it does to smartphones and tractors.
Allowing companies to prevent users from owning their devices puts less tech savy consumers who don't understand the risks at the mercy of the giant corporations.
I agree that smart phones should be general purpose computers, but that's why I use Android. iPhones are explicitly designed to not be general purpose computers, and that's part of the appeal for a lot of people.
The only criteria that should be a controlling factor for whether something is a "general purpose computer" or not, or rather, which amount of control end-users should have over it, is the device's raw computing power. Anything else is prone to abuse and is anti-consumer.
My wife doesn't want a general purpose computer in her pocket. She wants to be able to download and install an app with near-complete confidence that it won't steal her credit card. That desire is at odds with having a general purpose computing device.
This is why she (and millions like her) chose an iPhone. Are you seriously saying that Apple providing that as an option is anti-consumer?
I agree with you, but it's not about spouses or elderly parents. I have been designing chips and custom hardware for multiple decades. Guiding and/or implementing custom firmware for a similar time span. I am highly technical and I still want a phone with a tightly controlled ecosystem that is robust and it isn't sending all my personal data back to the mother ship for them to monetize. The App Store is one of the best features of the iPhone. There are a lot of bad players doing all sorts of things. I like having Apple guarding the gates.
The thing is, I think I am similar to the vast majority of Apple's customers in my preference for the App Store. Finding and installing software was a hassle before the store. The simplicity of app management with the store has been a revelation. Some will say that my preference shouldn't keep others from getting side-loading and I get that, but I imagine creating that installation path will also create a new exploit path. I don't think most customers will be happy if Apple has to allow side-loading and that leads to weaker security. Hopefully I'm wrong and weakened security can be avoided, but I'm skeptical for now.
A large segment of the HN readership doesn't seem to understand that many of their desires with respect to a device put them in a small minority of Apple's customers. If Apple is satisfying the vast majority of customers, why is that a bad thing?
> Are you seriously saying that Apple providing that as an option is anti-consumer?
I think Apple not providing the other option is anti-consumer. It can be as on the macs, where you have SIP and you can disable it if you so wish, although it takes some effort and is not straightforward. The phone can have 2 modes, a safe mode and an unsafe mode, and it's up to people to choose which mode they want to operate in. So your wife still has the option to have the non-general purpose computer in her pocket, and others can have it as a general purpose computer.
Why should Apple be obligated to serve two product categories? I have a phone that serves the role of general purpose computer just fine. I run mostly open source apps and even have a real terminal. It's just not an Apple phone.
It's not at odds at all. Tell your wife not to install third party stores or payment processors and she'll have the locked down device she wants while the rest of us can more fully use the portable computers we paid so much for.
Except you didn't pay for a portable computer. You are technically savvy. You knew what you were buying. Now that you own it, you want something different. I don't begrudge you deciding you want something different, I just don't think it is reasonable to imply that you were sold something different than you purchased.
> This is why she (and millions like her) chose an iPhone. Are you seriously saying that Apple providing that as an option is anti-consumer?
There has to be a way for the physical owner to have full control over the device. It's not even a matter of inmediate benefit, but rather good consumer/human rights policy.
Much like the right to privacy, data control and GDPR, it didn't matter that many services relied on tracking-based ad revenue to survive, the user's right to privacy superseded that, and so the law was passed.
This is somewhat the same principle. The general "digital right" to control, or to at least have the same degree of control as the manufacturer (for cases where not even they can control it fully after it comes out of the factory), is becoming an increasingly important thing with every passing day. It's no longer only about taste, but about public policy.
I'm not talking about taste, I'm talking about needs. A huge portion of the population wants to outsource their electronic security to someone else. They want a closed, but secure, ecosystem.
You're arguing that they don't know what's good for them, but I'm not seeing how that's a more pro-consumer stance than Apple's willingness to provide what customers want.
> You're arguing that they don't know what's good for them
Not really. In fact, that security and safety can be enforced even under the framework I'm proposing. Windows Defender is quite good these days, same on Android. It really doesn't compare to the early Win32/KitKat days.
"Outsourcing security to someone else" is a slippery slope of a DRM, anti-repair and anti-ownership future. We should be striving for more individual ownership and control over the devices and assets that we rely on for our daily lives, not less.
Yeah, but the point is that, no matter the degree of trust you may individually have, the consumer should always have the full control, which should extend to all devices, not just a choice at the time of purchase.
Ok, so there can be two kinds of iPhones, one for people that want control of their devices, and the other for people who don't. It can be built into the physical phone so there's no chance of compromise. Better?
>There has to be a way for the physical owner to have full control over the device. It's not even a matter of inmediate benefit, but rather good consumer/human rights policy.
Really? Do you have "full control" over your TV? Your dishwasher? Your microwave? Your car?
I hear this argument on HN, but I've never met an iPhone customer who complained about not being able to side-load apps. Anecdata to be sure, but Apple's goal is to satisfy customers and therefore sell lots and lots of phones. If there were significant customer demand, Apple would work to satisfy that demand.
> Really? Do you have "full control" over your TV? Your dishwasher? Your microwave? Your car?
You should. I would 100% support a law that forces companies to not implement digital locks that only they can open, even when the device is no longer owned by them.
A toaster is obviously not a general purpose computing device. It's a device for making toast. A law regarding computing devices that treats it the same as a desktop PC probably won't handle either ideally.
I think this is becoming increasingly less true. The primary media center in our home is an XBox Series X. We use it for games, movies, television, youtube, and music. It gets much more use playing videos and music than it does running games these days.
