4 ms·

I'm sorry, but you have completely missed the point. I generally try not to respond in ways that can be construed as rude, but there was only one point, it was

I'm sorry, but you have completely missed the point. I generally try not to respond in ways that can be construed as rude, but there was only one point, it was core to my comment, and your comment indicates that you did not understand it. > You could choose not to even if your ability to choose was not restricted. Choosing not to install apps that aren't approved by Apple is not the same thing as choosing to use a device where apps that are not approved by Apple cannot be installed. That is the entire point. How can someone (perhaps yourself?) be in favor of expanding choice and also opposed to to the existence of this choice?

AnthonyMouse 7y ago
> How can someone (perhaps yourself?) be in favor of expanding choice and also opposed to to the existence of this choice? The issue isn't that an iPhone on which you can't install apps not approved by Apple exists, it's that an iPhone (i.e. Apple hardware running iOS) on which you can install apps not approved by Apple doesn't exist, so that choice is missing from the market. In order for it to be a choice it is necessary for both alternatives to be available.
- dodobirdlord 7y ago
  > In order for it to be a choice it is necessary for both alternatives to be available. Fair, and ideally both options would exist. But an Android phone is a close approximation of an unlocked iPhone, while there is no other close approximation of a locked iPhone. Pushing the security stance of iPhone to align more closely with Android is a homogenization of the landscape and a reduction in the diversity of options.