3 ms·
It is also what gives Apple the power to lock older iOS devices from getting new apps - regardless if those devices would be able to run those apps or not and m
by Crinus 7y ago
It is also what gives Apple the power to lock older iOS devices from getting new apps - regardless if those devices would be able to run those apps or not and many of those devices would be able to run a large number of applications they have not access to - and force users to upgrade their devices to newer models.
Also Android is not wild-west freedom, the entire idea behind "side-loading" (which is not available everywhere) is a sign to that - or even worse, the inability to gain root access to your own device. If you want an example of such freedom, it would be something like what you see on desktop systems such as Windows or Linux (though Windows 8 and later did piss in the pool with their Metro/UWP efforts).
macOS can become a development and productivity platform while at the same time being locked down. For example you'd be able to install Xcode and even a (user-only) Unix command line environment that will autosign any executable you create for use only on your own machine and a few preapproved others. AFAIK this is how it is already done with iOS devices, except Xcode doesn't run there (but that is mainly an issue with API availability, not it requiring anything that couldn't be provided on a locked down macOS). Since this would require an annual developers' fee, it'd make any source-based releases impractical outside of developers and even that only for as long as you pay that fee (again see iOS: it isn't like you cannot download some iOS program in source code form and install it on your own device, but to do that you need to pay Apple for the privilege).
- gigatexal 7y agoI think I understand where you're coming from but I think a lot of your concerns are overblown. But to each their own, let's just see where they take things.