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.
