5 ms·

The position is self-defeating. How can you hold it and at the same time advocate against their choice to use a system that doesn't have the ability to install

The position is self-defeating. How can you hold it and at the same time advocate against their choice to use a system that doesn't have the ability to install apps from untrustworthy sources? The availability of such systems is obviously an increase in available choice, not a decrease.

CamperBob2 7y ago
Unless I'm misunderstanding your point, haven't you just rephrased Karl Popper's "paradox of tolerance?" Advocating freedom to create walled gardens in mainstream computing is what's self-defeating.
- dodobirdlord 7y ago
  I disagree. The existence of a walled garden to opt into is a meaningful choice. As long as other choices exist, the existence of a walled garden limits nobodies choice. Based on some other comments in the thread I'll add that it would be even better from a choice perspective if Apple offered two configurations of iPhone, one where sideloading was available via a software toggle and one with hardware that cannot run unsigned code. Ultimately though, an approximation of this choice is available by substituting some Android device for the first option.
AnthonyMouse 7y ago
> How can you hold it and at the same time advocate against their choice to use a system that doesn't have the ability to install apps from untrustworthy sources? The availability of such systems is obviously an increase in available choice, not a decrease. Saying "doesn't have the ability to install apps from other sources" is the same as saying "doesn't give you the choice to install apps from other sources" -- it's removing a choice. If you don't want to install apps that aren't approved by Apple then... don't. You could choose not to even if your ability to choose was not restricted.
- askafriend 7y ago
  > it's removing a choice. Not from the marketplace. If you care about this so much, you can go over to Android. I personally like the way Apple handles their platform with an iron grip and is part of the reason I buy their products.
  - detaro 7y ago
    Yes, it does remove a choice, because choice in the market is not along just one axis.
    - askafriend 7y ago
      I want to buy into a platform that is controlled tightly by a single entity that I trust to deliver a good user experience reliably; in this case, that's Apple. I consider the tight control a feature and I'm glad this philosophy of computing is available in the marketplace. I think people underestimate this view.
      - detaro 7y ago
        I don't think it's an underestimated view, it's quite common. I just don't think it would be compromised very much if there was an optional escape hatch. Buying a hypothetical Apple device and never flicking on the sideloading switch would still give you that. Whereas the person who generally prefers the security engineering, design choices and/or integration of iOS but wants some exceptions is now told "If you care about this so much, you can go over to Android.".
        dodobirdlord 7y ago
        > Buying a hypothetical Apple device and never flicking on the sideloading switch would still give you that. Until someone (my abusive spouse? someone with a narrowly scoped zero-day and physical access to my phone?) abuses the existence of this functionality in ways that compromise my security. > Whereas the person who generally prefers the security engineering, design choices and/or integration of iOS but wants some exceptions is now told "If you care about this so much, you can go over to Android.". I agree with you here. It would be great if Apple offered two classes of iPhone, one where such a switch was present and one where unsigned code was prevented from executing by hardware.

CamperBob2 7y ago

Unless I'm misunderstanding your point, haven't you just rephrased Karl Popper's "paradox of tolerance?" Advocating freedom to create walled gardens in mainstream computing is what's self-defeating.

dodobirdlord 7y ago
I disagree. The existence of a walled garden to opt into is a meaningful choice. As long as other choices exist, the existence of a walled garden limits nobodies choice. Based on some other comments in the thread I'll add that it would be even better from a choice perspective if Apple offered two configurations of iPhone, one where sideloading was available via a software toggle and one with hardware that cannot run unsigned code. Ultimately though, an approximation of this choice is available by substituting some Android device for the first option.

AnthonyMouse 7y ago

> How can you hold it and at the same time advocate against their choice to use a system that doesn't have the ability to install apps from untrustworthy sources? The availability of such systems is obviously an increase in available choice, not a decrease. Saying "doesn't have the ability to install apps from other sources" is the same as saying "doesn't give you the choice to install apps from other sources" -- it's removing a choice. If you don't want to install apps that aren't approved by Apple then... don't. You could choose not to even if your ability to choose was not restricted.

askafriend 7y ago
> it's removing a choice. Not from the marketplace. If you care about this so much, you can go over to Android. I personally like the way Apple handles their platform with an iron grip and is part of the reason I buy their products.
- detaro 7y ago
  Yes, it does remove a choice, because choice in the market is not along just one axis.
  - askafriend 7y ago
    I want to buy into a platform that is controlled tightly by a single entity that I trust to deliver a good user experience reliably; in this case, that's Apple. I consider the tight control a feature and I'm glad this philosophy of computing is available in the marketplace. I think people underestimate this view.
    - detaro 7y ago
      I don't think it's an underestimated view, it's quite common. I just don't think it would be compromised very much if there was an optional escape hatch. Buying a hypothetical Apple device and never flicking on the sideloading switch would still give you that. Whereas the person who generally prefers the security engineering, design choices and/or integration of iOS but wants some exceptions is now told "If you care about this so much, you can go over to Android.".
      - dodobirdlord 7y ago
        > Buying a hypothetical Apple device and never flicking on the sideloading switch would still give you that. Until someone (my abusive spouse? someone with a narrowly scoped zero-day and physical access to my phone?) abuses the existence of this functionality in ways that compromise my security. > Whereas the person who generally prefers the security engineering, design choices and/or integration of iOS but wants some exceptions is now told "If you care about this so much, you can go over to Android.". I agree with you here. It would be great if Apple offered two classes of iPhone, one where such a switch was present and one where unsigned code was prevented from executing by hardware.