> 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GDPR, it didn't matter that many services relied on tracking-based ad revenue to survive, the user's right to privacy superseded that, and so the law was passed.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.
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.