18 ms·

Apple is at fault here, not for moderating their store, but for disallowing people to install software of their own choice on their own devices. This is comple

Apple is at fault here, not for moderating their store, but for disallowing people to install software of their own choice on their own devices. This is completely unacceptable as a user and I do not understand how apple users put up with this.

OJFord 7y ago
I agree with you, but 'users put up with this' because >99% just couldn't care less, Facebook and Snapchat are in the App Store, why do I need to install a different way?
robocat 7y ago
> disallowing people to install software of their own choice on their own devices. Yet allowing anything to be installed is the cesspit of Windows virus laden software. That said, I buy Android because I can side-load if I choose to.
- ninjin 7y ago
  > Yet allowing anything to be installed is the cesspit of Windows virus laden software. Okay, I have seen this false choice enough times over several years and at this point it annoys me so much that I must speak up. No, Windows is (was? I have not used it for more than a decade) not the mess it is because it allows you to install anything. It is the mess it is because it there was no sensible source of approved software. The choice is not between anything goes and a walled garden, there is the middle ground of providing a solid source of approved software (frankly, I think Google has largely failed with this given the state of their Play store) and still allow side loading for cases such as the one mentioned in this very article. Heck, this was one of the amazing things I experienced when moving to Linux in 2005. You had 98% of your software approved and receiving updates through your OS, and then a game or two, oddball VPN, etc. installed in your home directory – it was endlessly refreshing.
  - Legogris 7y ago
    Even more, I blame non-existent sandboxing. Anything could practically be root for a long time. With proper permission control and isolated storage for apps, installing anything does not equal cesspit of virus-laden software.
  - robocat 7y ago
    > No, Windows is not the mess it is because it allows you to install anything. It is the mess it is because it there was no sensible source of approved software. I completely disagree. In particular, if there is a paid version in a store, then users will seek a free version outside of the store, and then receive a free bouquet of viruses. Or they seek a free movie or VPN, and Google suggests an application that isn't in the store: more free flowers installed. Android has an approved store, and yet I have read articles lambasting the security of Apps, where the underlying reason was that users had gone side-loading. Fear damaging the brand.
- computerex 7y ago
  What's your proof? The more likely reason for more malware targeting Windows is simply that Windows is by far the most popular operating system for desktops and laptops. In terms of market share nothing even comes close. So if I was making malware, I'd target Windows to maximize my value. On macOS for example you can install whatever apps you want, it's the same as Windows.
- wickerman 7y ago
  In over 20 years of downloading stuff using Windows, I never ever have got a single virus. It's almost as if it had to do with how you use the tool and not how the tool is constructed.
BLKNSLVR 7y ago
I find it unacceptable for my own personal needs and use case, but it's not unacceptable as a business decision in that it's arguably been very successful (profit-wise and brand-loyalty-wise). That's why there are options (mind you, very few in this case, but that's kinda beside the point).
paulcarroty 7y ago
Apple helps Chinese government, not the first time. Jailbrake or android, no another way for HK people. About Android - don't be crazy to buy Huawei/Xiaomi/etc.
Retric 7y ago
I really don’t understand this complaint. Gaming consoles have long used the same model to great effect. Limit what software can run and you vastly improve most people’s experience. Freedom is not just about letting people do anything, it’s also a question of what contracts they can enter. If you have some burning desire to hack the hardware, get a dev account and you can lode arbitrary code. Or just buy a different phone.
- computerex 7y ago
  I am not sure how a comparison between gaming consoles is relevant here. If you are going to mention gaming consoles, I'll take the liberty of mentioning personal computing devices such as laptops or desktops. Imagine not being able to install the apps of your choice and being restricted to Apple approved apps. Also, you haven't made clear how giving users the freedom to install apps of their choice contributes to a negative user experience.
  - Retric 7y ago
    Consoles are a fairly direct comparison so the link is obvious. Still, if you’re talking about running arbitrary software then try loading “Uncharted: The Lost Legacy” on your PC or laptop. It’s not going to work, because you’re always limited to a subset of software on any platform PC or otherwise. As to a negative user experience, console gaming won largely due to the lack of software issues. There are several reason for this, but inability to install random software really is one of them.
    - dangerface 7y ago
      There is a huge difference between a software company adding support to run on a device and a hardware company preventing supported software from running on a device.
      - falcolas 7y ago
        In that case, run Factorio on a PS4. The CPU and GPU are compatible, so why can’t I run Factorio on my PS4?
Unklejoe 7y ago
> I do not understand how apple users put up with this. The argument I typically see goes something like: "I don't want to have to worry about whether I should trust an app or not, so I prefer everything be vetted by Apple. If we allow users to install their own software, then bypassing the app store will become commonplace." I personally disagree with this notion. In fact, I wouldn't mind a law that says "if a device has an app store, then it must be able to load applications outside of the store". I think the fears of everybody sideloading malware apps are a little overblown. Many Android phones can have apps sideloaded (and are even rootable), but how many people actually do it? How did we go from Microsoft getting sued over internet explorer to the situation we're currently in?
- dimator 7y ago
  What Microsoft got in huge trouble for absolutely pales in comparison to what current tech companies get away with. I'm not sure why that is. A combination of oversight getting extremely weak and consumer apathy are my guesses.
  - Someone 7y ago
    As to Apple, there’s no way monopoly laws apply, so new laws would have to be made. Making new laws takes time, as it might be challenging to phrase a law in such a way that it can’t be circumvented and doesn’t have unintended consequences. Also, government mills mill slowly. In the anti-trust case against Microsoft (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Microsoft_Corp. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Microsoft_Cor...), where laws and jurisprudence existed, it already took 6 years from (first FTC investigation started in 1992, anti-trust lawsuit started in 1998) I don’t think it is a matter of oversight getting weak; it just takes time. Certainly, the EU is willing to take action.
- leetcrew 7y ago
  > In fact, I wouldn't mind a law that says "if a device has an app store, then it must be able to load applications outside of the store". this is a great example of a superfluous law we don't need. if you want sideloading, get an Android phone. having no option to get a feature you care about is a problem. not being able to have your dream set of features on a particular phone is not.
cryptozeus 7y ago
Because their target audience is not always power users. They need to protect those who don’t understand the difference between app and virus. There is a peace in knowing that anything comes from the app store will be safe and free of malice.
- enriquto 7y ago
  > There is a peace in knowing that anything comes from the app store will be safe and free of malice. Roman peace in this case. Congratulations on your two cents towards enabling totalitarism.
  - derefr 7y ago
    Is wanting my mom to not be presented with the option of installing malware on her phone (which she will do, and then later ask me to remove), totalitarianism? Let me ask a similar question: is preventing con artists from contacting the elderly with varying degrees of cognitive decline (i.e. people who would easily be tricked by them), totalitarianism? Maybe when it’s the government doing it, but how about when it’s a feature of some, but not all, phones? Apple isn’t a monopoly†. You buy into their curated walled garden, by choice. Just like you see a movie by choice, or enter an art gallery by choice. At that point, you are intentionally handing control over your experience to the person or organization who curates the experience. But you can always revoke that control: just leave the ecosystem. Analogy: City parks exist. National parks exist. National wildlife preserves exist. The former does not preclude the latter. If you visit the former and don’t like the curated nature of it, you can always leave, and go visit the latter, where things are less curated. But there is value and functionality in the curation of a city park. For one, you can take small children and pets to city parks and not have to watch them very hard. († If something is a monopoly, such that it’s hard to avoid using it, then this argument doesn’t apply. Facebook, for example.)
    - salawat 7y ago
      I get where you're coming from, but you do need to realize that short of the Librem phones that only recently came into production, there was no non-city park unless you were a developer. Case and point. I did not burst from the womb computer-savvy. I had to learn. Part of that was supported by the fact there were not highly technical barriers to entry in regards to expanding my computational toolset. Getting something working on Android and iOS on the other hand, is over and again more complicated. I can at least side-load to Android, but I must understand Sal and encryption enough to grok code-signing. That is not a trivial barrier to entry. For iOS, I essentially have to sign up as a member of a registry in order to even get something on the phone/tablet for development purposes. My love of computing and figuring out how things work carried me to where I am today; but the high degree of friction that is increasingly implemented for no other reason than being good for business presents a form of computing that I'm still amazed anyone partake in as a pastime at all. Hell, Android is specifically set up to prevent you as a User from doing anything you would conventionally do as a User of a computing system. It is very much a computing platform for the developer's and not the user's benefit. It's a precarious balance to maintain admittedly, but what Apple has illustrated through their actions is that their Phones and AppStore are meant as an extension of themselves to do business first, and to be useful for what you deem fit second. Even if Hong Kongers ended up getting developer accounts to run the safety app, Beijing is well within their authority to use that list of "developers" as a basis for a crackdown by demanding Apple hand it over as a condition of doing business. I can understand the luxury in just being able to get your Gram a mobile phone and not have to worry so much. I worry even more at the consequences in store a few generations down the line where the bunch of we Free Software nutters who remember what flying by the seat of our pants as root, damn the torpedoes, are not guaranteed to be around for to protest when increasingly large and entrenched models of proprietary software distribution networks and OS architectures lock users out of even being able to leverage honest-to-God General Purpose Computation. The more decisions are left to the industry and supply chain, the more rights will be lost by the wayside in the name of doing business.
leetcrew 7y ago
I really don't consider this a big problem. apple doesn't have a majority share of the smartphone market and people who care about sideloading can choose from hundreds of Android phones. of the iPhone users who even know what sideloading is, most consider the fact that it isn't allowed to be a feature.
- dexen 7y ago
  >I really don't consider this a big problem In the drive to close up security holes, Apple created a new one that can't be conceivably fixed by the user. The user is ostensibly prevented from installing apps outside of the Apple Store to protect the data from malicious access, theft or destruction. The thorough app vetting process gives high assurances of that. However there's a 4th aspect of security: security against service denial. Apple, by being the sole guardian and steward of the iPhone app ecosystem, made all their users vulnerable to service denial (in form of app removal). If there were alternative mechanisms available - ex competing iPhone app stores - the vulnerability would be negligible. However presently the vulnerability is glaring: all it takes is single legal action - or even just enough of pressure from government on a key market - and the users are denied use of certain apps.
jiveturkey 7y ago
Disallowing people to drive while using their phone, in a car that they own using roads that they pay for, is completely unacceptable as a driver. I do not understand how citizens put up with this.
chefandy 7y ago
"I do not understand how apple users put up with this" You do not understand because lots of apple users clearly have different usage requirements for their phones. I tinker with stuff 8+ hours per day for a paycheck; when I'm using my phone, I don't want to tinker with it, I want it to just work, and my iPhone does exactly that. Someone has made a bunch of intelligent design decisions about the way things work— much better than with android phones— and I agree with them often enough that I don't care that I can't change them. My brain is busy; the fact that I don't have to think about changing them is great. It's an appliance to me. I don't try to reprogram any of my electronic kitchen appliances either, and I'm a software developer that used to be a chef. I'd much rather spend my time concentrating on the output than the tools. I get that it's not everybody's workflow— you do you. I also really don't care if I can't install apps that aren't available through the app store. I use a teeny, tiny fraction of what is available through the app store... the chance of app store availability being a limiting factor in my phone usage is pretty much non-existent. I use a computer for everything I can't use my phone for, and it's usually better for those tasks, anyway.
- guelo 7y ago
  You're an obedient citizen that sees no need to go outside the box. China would have no problem with you.
  - chefandy 7y ago
    The fact that you think you can intuit that based solely on a brief description of how I interact with my phone indicates that a) phones probably play a much more significant role in your life than mine, and b) your ability to extrapolate people's behavior based on limited information isn't quite as impressive as you think it is.
    - lamigra_burner 7y ago
      The whole point is that phones are playing "a much more significant role" in the protesters lives than yours. You live in a place where you don't have to worry about that, but what does that have to do with the article??
makerofspoons 7y ago
The app developer should release the code ASAP- instructions could be written so that users could install the app by building it themselves, even if it can only persist for 7 days at a time.
- fersc 7y ago
  this could literally just be a web app and there would be no loss in functionality...
  - pmarreck 7y ago
    I was going to say this. This looks like a job for an https web app that is difficult to block... or perhaps just make a massive group text in an existing tool like discord or whatsapp?
pmarreck 7y ago
One advantage of not allowing any user to install any software of their choice on their iOS devices is that iPhones do not end up participating in botnets, get crypto-locked with a bitcoin bounty, or otherwise get compromised. This is a massive advantage which arguably outweighs the disadvantage.
- smsm42 7y ago
  Not for the people of Hong Kong.
- noisem4ker 7y ago
  Not getting crypto-locked should be a consequence of a proper sandboxing system, not a consequence of some dictator stating what is allowed and what is forbidden.
magicbuzz 7y ago
The ‘1984’ ad should be re-edited so that the protestor running down the aisle with their hammer stops running when they realise that Apple disabled their hammer.
retpirato 7y ago
they put up with it because apple products are overpriced - ALL of them — & they incorrectly equate price with quality, the more expensive it is the better quality it must be in their eyes.

OJFord 7y ago

I agree with you, but 'users put up with this' because >99% just couldn't care less, Facebook and Snapchat are in the App Store, why do I need to install a different way?

robocat 7y ago

> disallowing people to install software of their own choice on their own devices. Yet allowing anything to be installed is the cesspit of Windows virus laden software. That said, I buy Android because I can side-load if I choose to.

ninjin 7y ago
> Yet allowing anything to be installed is the cesspit of Windows virus laden software. Okay, I have seen this false choice enough times over several years and at this point it annoys me so much that I must speak up. No, Windows is (was? I have not used it for more than a decade) not the mess it is because it allows you to install anything. It is the mess it is because it there was no sensible source of approved software. The choice is not between anything goes and a walled garden, there is the middle ground of providing a solid source of approved software (frankly, I think Google has largely failed with this given the state of their Play store) and still allow side loading for cases such as the one mentioned in this very article. Heck, this was one of the amazing things I experienced when moving to Linux in 2005. You had 98% of your software approved and receiving updates through your OS, and then a game or two, oddball VPN, etc. installed in your home directory – it was endlessly refreshing.
- Legogris 7y ago
  Even more, I blame non-existent sandboxing. Anything could practically be root for a long time. With proper permission control and isolated storage for apps, installing anything does not equal cesspit of virus-laden software.
- robocat 7y ago
  > No, Windows is not the mess it is because it allows you to install anything. It is the mess it is because it there was no sensible source of approved software. I completely disagree. In particular, if there is a paid version in a store, then users will seek a free version outside of the store, and then receive a free bouquet of viruses. Or they seek a free movie or VPN, and Google suggests an application that isn't in the store: more free flowers installed. Android has an approved store, and yet I have read articles lambasting the security of Apps, where the underlying reason was that users had gone side-loading. Fear damaging the brand.
computerex 7y ago
What's your proof? The more likely reason for more malware targeting Windows is simply that Windows is by far the most popular operating system for desktops and laptops. In terms of market share nothing even comes close. So if I was making malware, I'd target Windows to maximize my value. On macOS for example you can install whatever apps you want, it's the same as Windows.
wickerman 7y ago
In over 20 years of downloading stuff using Windows, I never ever have got a single virus. It's almost as if it had to do with how you use the tool and not how the tool is constructed.

BLKNSLVR 7y ago

I find it unacceptable for my own personal needs and use case, but it's not unacceptable as a business decision in that it's arguably been very successful (profit-wise and brand-loyalty-wise). That's why there are options (mind you, very few in this case, but that's kinda beside the point).

paulcarroty 7y ago

Apple helps Chinese government, not the first time. Jailbrake or android, no another way for HK people. About Android - don't be crazy to buy Huawei/Xiaomi/etc.

Retric 7y ago

I really don’t understand this complaint. Gaming consoles have long used the same model to great effect. Limit what software can run and you vastly improve most people’s experience. Freedom is not just about letting people do anything, it’s also a question of what contracts they can enter. If you have some burning desire to hack the hardware, get a dev account and you can lode arbitrary code. Or just buy a different phone.

computerex 7y ago
I am not sure how a comparison between gaming consoles is relevant here. If you are going to mention gaming consoles, I'll take the liberty of mentioning personal computing devices such as laptops or desktops. Imagine not being able to install the apps of your choice and being restricted to Apple approved apps. Also, you haven't made clear how giving users the freedom to install apps of their choice contributes to a negative user experience.
- Retric 7y ago
  Consoles are a fairly direct comparison so the link is obvious. Still, if you’re talking about running arbitrary software then try loading “Uncharted: The Lost Legacy” on your PC or laptop. It’s not going to work, because you’re always limited to a subset of software on any platform PC or otherwise. As to a negative user experience, console gaming won largely due to the lack of software issues. There are several reason for this, but inability to install random software really is one of them.
  - dangerface 7y ago
    There is a huge difference between a software company adding support to run on a device and a hardware company preventing supported software from running on a device.
    - falcolas 7y ago
      In that case, run Factorio on a PS4. The CPU and GPU are compatible, so why can’t I run Factorio on my PS4?

Unklejoe 7y ago

> I do not understand how apple users put up with this. The argument I typically see goes something like: "I don't want to have to worry about whether I should trust an app or not, so I prefer everything be vetted by Apple. If we allow users to install their own software, then bypassing the app store will become commonplace." I personally disagree with this notion. In fact, I wouldn't mind a law that says "if a device has an app store, then it must be able to load applications outside of the store". I think the fears of everybody sideloading malware apps are a little overblown. Many Android phones can have apps sideloaded (and are even rootable), but how many people actually do it? How did we go from Microsoft getting sued over internet explorer to the situation we're currently in?

dimator 7y ago
What Microsoft got in huge trouble for absolutely pales in comparison to what current tech companies get away with. I'm not sure why that is. A combination of oversight getting extremely weak and consumer apathy are my guesses.
- Someone 7y ago
  As to Apple, there’s no way monopoly laws apply, so new laws would have to be made. Making new laws takes time, as it might be challenging to phrase a law in such a way that it can’t be circumvented and doesn’t have unintended consequences. Also, government mills mill slowly. In the anti-trust case against Microsoft (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Microsoft_Corp. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Microsoft_Cor...), where laws and jurisprudence existed, it already took 6 years from (first FTC investigation started in 1992, anti-trust lawsuit started in 1998) I don’t think it is a matter of oversight getting weak; it just takes time. Certainly, the EU is willing to take action.
leetcrew 7y ago
> In fact, I wouldn't mind a law that says "if a device has an app store, then it must be able to load applications outside of the store". this is a great example of a superfluous law we don't need. if you want sideloading, get an Android phone. having no option to get a feature you care about is a problem. not being able to have your dream set of features on a particular phone is not.

cryptozeus 7y ago

Because their target audience is not always power users. They need to protect those who don’t understand the difference between app and virus. There is a peace in knowing that anything comes from the app store will be safe and free of malice.

enriquto 7y ago
> There is a peace in knowing that anything comes from the app store will be safe and free of malice. Roman peace in this case. Congratulations on your two cents towards enabling totalitarism.
- derefr 7y ago
  Is wanting my mom to not be presented with the option of installing malware on her phone (which she will do, and then later ask me to remove), totalitarianism? Let me ask a similar question: is preventing con artists from contacting the elderly with varying degrees of cognitive decline (i.e. people who would easily be tricked by them), totalitarianism? Maybe when it’s the government doing it, but how about when it’s a feature of some, but not all, phones? Apple isn’t a monopoly†. You buy into their curated walled garden, by choice. Just like you see a movie by choice, or enter an art gallery by choice. At that point, you are intentionally handing control over your experience to the person or organization who curates the experience. But you can always revoke that control: just leave the ecosystem. Analogy: City parks exist. National parks exist. National wildlife preserves exist. The former does not preclude the latter. If you visit the former and don’t like the curated nature of it, you can always leave, and go visit the latter, where things are less curated. But there is value and functionality in the curation of a city park. For one, you can take small children and pets to city parks and not have to watch them very hard. († If something is a monopoly, such that it’s hard to avoid using it, then this argument doesn’t apply. Facebook, for example.)
  - salawat 7y ago
    I get where you're coming from, but you do need to realize that short of the Librem phones that only recently came into production, there was no non-city park unless you were a developer. Case and point. I did not burst from the womb computer-savvy. I had to learn. Part of that was supported by the fact there were not highly technical barriers to entry in regards to expanding my computational toolset. Getting something working on Android and iOS on the other hand, is over and again more complicated. I can at least side-load to Android, but I must understand Sal and encryption enough to grok code-signing. That is not a trivial barrier to entry. For iOS, I essentially have to sign up as a member of a registry in order to even get something on the phone/tablet for development purposes. My love of computing and figuring out how things work carried me to where I am today; but the high degree of friction that is increasingly implemented for no other reason than being good for business presents a form of computing that I'm still amazed anyone partake in as a pastime at all. Hell, Android is specifically set up to prevent you as a User from doing anything you would conventionally do as a User of a computing system. It is very much a computing platform for the developer's and not the user's benefit. It's a precarious balance to maintain admittedly, but what Apple has illustrated through their actions is that their Phones and AppStore are meant as an extension of themselves to do business first, and to be useful for what you deem fit second. Even if Hong Kongers ended up getting developer accounts to run the safety app, Beijing is well within their authority to use that list of "developers" as a basis for a crackdown by demanding Apple hand it over as a condition of doing business. I can understand the luxury in just being able to get your Gram a mobile phone and not have to worry so much. I worry even more at the consequences in store a few generations down the line where the bunch of we Free Software nutters who remember what flying by the seat of our pants as root, damn the torpedoes, are not guaranteed to be around for to protest when increasingly large and entrenched models of proprietary software distribution networks and OS architectures lock users out of even being able to leverage honest-to-God General Purpose Computation. The more decisions are left to the industry and supply chain, the more rights will be lost by the wayside in the name of doing business.

leetcrew 7y ago

I really don't consider this a big problem. apple doesn't have a majority share of the smartphone market and people who care about sideloading can choose from hundreds of Android phones. of the iPhone users who even know what sideloading is, most consider the fact that it isn't allowed to be a feature.

dexen 7y ago
>I really don't consider this a big problem In the drive to close up security holes, Apple created a new one that can't be conceivably fixed by the user. The user is ostensibly prevented from installing apps outside of the Apple Store to protect the data from malicious access, theft or destruction. The thorough app vetting process gives high assurances of that. However there's a 4th aspect of security: security against service denial. Apple, by being the sole guardian and steward of the iPhone app ecosystem, made all their users vulnerable to service denial (in form of app removal). If there were alternative mechanisms available - ex competing iPhone app stores - the vulnerability would be negligible. However presently the vulnerability is glaring: all it takes is single legal action - or even just enough of pressure from government on a key market - and the users are denied use of certain apps.

jiveturkey 7y ago

Disallowing people to drive while using their phone, in a car that they own using roads that they pay for, is completely unacceptable as a driver. I do not understand how citizens put up with this.

chefandy 7y ago

"I do not understand how apple users put up with this" You do not understand because lots of apple users clearly have different usage requirements for their phones. I tinker with stuff 8+ hours per day for a paycheck; when I'm using my phone, I don't want to tinker with it, I want it to just work, and my iPhone does exactly that. Someone has made a bunch of intelligent design decisions about the way things work— much better than with android phones— and I agree with them often enough that I don't care that I can't change them. My brain is busy; the fact that I don't have to think about changing them is great. It's an appliance to me. I don't try to reprogram any of my electronic kitchen appliances either, and I'm a software developer that used to be a chef. I'd much rather spend my time concentrating on the output than the tools. I get that it's not everybody's workflow— you do you. I also really don't care if I can't install apps that aren't available through the app store. I use a teeny, tiny fraction of what is available through the app store... the chance of app store availability being a limiting factor in my phone usage is pretty much non-existent. I use a computer for everything I can't use my phone for, and it's usually better for those tasks, anyway.

guelo 7y ago
You're an obedient citizen that sees no need to go outside the box. China would have no problem with you.
- chefandy 7y ago
  The fact that you think you can intuit that based solely on a brief description of how I interact with my phone indicates that a) phones probably play a much more significant role in your life than mine, and b) your ability to extrapolate people's behavior based on limited information isn't quite as impressive as you think it is.
  - lamigra_burner 7y ago
    The whole point is that phones are playing "a much more significant role" in the protesters lives than yours. You live in a place where you don't have to worry about that, but what does that have to do with the article??

makerofspoons 7y ago

The app developer should release the code ASAP- instructions could be written so that users could install the app by building it themselves, even if it can only persist for 7 days at a time.

fersc 7y ago
this could literally just be a web app and there would be no loss in functionality...
- pmarreck 7y ago
  I was going to say this. This looks like a job for an https web app that is difficult to block... or perhaps just make a massive group text in an existing tool like discord or whatsapp?

pmarreck 7y ago

One advantage of not allowing any user to install any software of their choice on their iOS devices is that iPhones do not end up participating in botnets, get crypto-locked with a bitcoin bounty, or otherwise get compromised. This is a massive advantage which arguably outweighs the disadvantage.

smsm42 7y ago
Not for the people of Hong Kong.
noisem4ker 7y ago
Not getting crypto-locked should be a consequence of a proper sandboxing system, not a consequence of some dictator stating what is allowed and what is forbidden.

magicbuzz 7y ago

The ‘1984’ ad should be re-edited so that the protestor running down the aisle with their hammer stops running when they realise that Apple disabled their hammer.

retpirato 7y ago

they put up with it because apple products are overpriced - ALL of them — & they incorrectly equate price with quality, the more expensive it is the better quality it must be in their eyes.