41 ms·

I still wonder why so many people buy devices, where the only software you could run has to be approved by the manufacturer. I think we should speak more about

I still wonder why so many people buy devices, where the only software you could run has to be approved by the manufacturer. I think we should speak more about this fact, so that people think twice before they buy some device. I only make websites, but I am worried, that at some point, Apple would want me to pay them, so that my website is openable on their devices.

m-p-3 6y ago
> I still wonder why so many people buy devices, where the only software you could run has to be approved by the manufacturer. Because most of them don't really care until it directly impacts them, and because Apple spends a huge amount of money on their marketing.
foxdev 6y ago
I only do a handful of things on my phone, and I need it to do those things reliably. My new laptop, on the other hand, opens with a Philips head screwdriver and almost everything can be replaced or upgraded. Different priorities for different needs.
Broken_Hippo 6y ago
Lack of realistic choice. If you are the average consumer looking to buy a smartphone, you have the choice of either Android or Apple. You get more choice with a PC, to an extent - the average consumer is going to get to choose between Microsoft, something like a chromebook, or apple. (Most folks buy mainstream, widely available products that work out of the box). I'm not sure the market for non-standard products is that high. A non-significant number of folks wouldn't put anything on their computer that hasn't been approved for fear of "bad things".
- skohan 6y ago
  Windows, Apple and Chromebooks are all proprietary platforms. With PC you also have the choice to install Linux, which is the categorical difference. With smartphones there's not really an open choice available.
  - Broken_Hippo 6y ago
    I specifically didn't mention Linux because Linux isn't a realistic choice for the average consumer, though. Realistic choices come commonly pre-installed and works with a range of things without much work for the end consumer. Most folks don't have the choice to install it due to lack of technical competence anyway. Even folks with the technical know-how often enough don't due to, well, ease of use issues. (Yes, I know you can buy computers without an OS and you can buy computes with Linux as well - but not enough to be realistic for most folks. I'm pretty sure you can buy phones with a different OS as well but again, not realistic choices).
    - sensanaty 6y ago
      Linux is pretty user friendly these days though, Ubuntu and Mint are perfectly usable even if you're not a poweruser. Maybe that's just the developer in me falsely believing people are more competent than they actually are, though.
      - dividedbyzero 6y ago
        The issue isn't using it, it's getting it set up, working with all hardware, getting everything that's needed installed across different repositories, configuring everything the way it's needed, then keeping it running, survive updates, and fixing it when it breaks, which desktop Linux is still very prone to (apt dependency conflicts have wrecked beyond repair many Linux installs I've run). At some point, you have to have a pretty deep understanding of how Linux and computers work to Google the right things, and then understand and apply a fix – or worse, you may have to work out one on your own, which may entail things like reading source code and patching stuff; I'd say I'm somewhat competent as far as running Linux goes, and I've had numerous issues over the years that I was unable to fix, mundane but non-negotiable things like "getting sound to work". Best case, that'll just require more or less heavy command line usage, which only a tiny minority of people have ever used before and which is highly non-intuitive at first. That amounts to building a very comprehensive set of skills that is completely worthless to most people otherwise, and that you don't need for Windows or macOS, let alone Android/iOS.
- ocdtrekkie 6y ago
  Lack of realistic choice indeed. Only reason I'm writing this from an iPhone is because every other retail quality mobile device runs freaking Android.
wodenokoto 6y ago
> where the only software you could run has to be approved by the manufacturer. My two reasons: 1. I bought cellphones before the iPhone. This is nothing new. 2. I don't need everything to run on my phone. The amount of things I can't run on my phone, but wish I could is incredibly tiny, compared to the perceived additional utility my iphone gives me compared to my last Android or dumbphone. Moreover, I also own a Nintendo Switch and am considering buying a Playstation. I think as a consumer, I am not alone in accepting that certain devices will only run manufacturer approved software.
- badsectoracula 6y ago
  Yes but why? Why not demand to be able to have control over your own devices?
  - ericmay 6y ago
    Because we don’t want control over our Nintendo switch or iPhone.
    - m-p-3 6y ago
      I still wish OtherOS[1] was still a thing on PlayStation systems. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OtherOS https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OtherOS
    - badsectoracula 6y ago
      But why? What is the benefit of giving up that control?
      - ericmay 6y ago
        I lose the App Store, Apple leading the way by enforcing privacy standards, and many other things. Having control isn’t always a good thing. The benefit of having control here “download another App Store” isn’t much of a benefit to me. I love the way things are. That’s why I have an iPhone.
alkonaut 6y ago
> I still wonder why so many people buy devices, where the only software you could run has to be approved by the manufacturer. Because many of us feel that the alternative (The nightmare that is the desktop PC application ecosystem) would be far worse, especially on a smartphone.
- badsectoracula 6y ago
  How is having control over what you can install on your own PC and being in a position to actually choose from where to install it a nightmare? Is being in control and having choice a nightmare?
  - ericmay 6y ago
    Well, you just look at the PC ecosystem and you can see the nightmare. Like others,I prefer Apple to have a tightly controlled App Store and believe that the benefits far outweigh the ability to install software from a 3rd party App Store. For example, Apple requiring Sign In with Apple (when signin with Google/Facebook are implemented) where you can hide your email address. That’s not possible with multiple app stores. Apple helps lead the way with privacy. If you want multiple app stores and all that, just buy an Android phone. iPhone is for people like me who want a tightly controlled experience. That’s the way it’s designed. You don’t buy a Corolla and get mad that you can’t off road with it, do you?
    - swiley 6y ago
      Here are just some reasons why android isn’t an alternative: Most ship with maleware that can’t be removed (or can’t be removed without giving up on updating the OS.) Android still doesn’t let you run a lot of 3rd party software (the latest version breaks Termux for example.) Apple’s anticompetitive behavior also ties people to the platform (iMessage is a great example of this. My family won’t use any other IM app so even if I buy another phone (which I have, it’s supposed to arrive in September) I’ll have to keep my iPhone just to talk to them.) Finally the hardware is just bad. Qualcomm does not make nice SOCs (IMO) but it could be just because the software they provide with them is complete garbage. There’s no alternative in the US either.
bluesign 6y ago
I don’t have problem with platform setting some standards and mostly I am happy with Apple put out there (as a developer too) Even though you can say mobile phones are general computing devices, actually for most of the people they are just media consumption devices. I believe technical restrictions are not enough in this age alone. As long as they have rules and it is applied fairly and equally, I prefer controlled and regulated market places.
breakfastduck 6y ago
I don't use my phone as a pc, I use it to run a few generic apps, make notes and reminders and, obviously, as a phone. iPhone does the trick for me in that regard, the app library is huge, the consistent design is great, the way it syncs with my macbook is irreplaceable. Being blocked from running arbitrary code on a phone is not a big deal to the vast majority of users. If that's a dealbreak, buy an android phone. But lets not pretend that doesn't come with huge tradeoffs if you like what the iPhone provides.
grezql 6y ago
there is no equivalent alternative. Android is laggy, low-quality, malware-infested junk. Windows Phone was beginning to look good. It has great design, quick OS and apps. I wish Microsoft continued at low cost operative mode and just waited for the right opportunities like this.
- Waterfall 6y ago
  When was the last time you used Android? That sounds true of 2012 or so but not after. Android does have a poor status though, the value of it's phones drops precipitously every few months until it levels at $100-$200 a year later, or it was cheap in the first place and good like xiaomi. iPhones don't drop like that.
Shivetya 6y ago
Because it does not matter to the vast majority of people. In fact many appreciate that there is a gate keeper. There are so many categories where you cannot load software outside of what the manufacturer provides that you cannot list them. It would also be impractical to allow otherwise for many of these. Then you end up with warranty issues. Would you allow people to load software of their choice for their automobiles? Tesla is fighting this one now where people are paying a third party to boost their horsepower. Smart TVs usually are limited by their OS and encumbered by licensing that locks down what can be loaded. This mostly is because of decoding legalities Who becomes liable if your privacy, assets, or even the device, are compromised because you were able to load software not vetted? Do you want a world where you need a virus scan program for your phone? I look at it this way, you have a choice in what you buy, because a manufacturer does not adhere to your desire is by no means justification for forcing them to do so.
- anoncake 6y ago
  > Would you allow people to load software of their choice for their automobiles? Obviously yes. > Smart TVs usually are limited by their OS and encumbered by licensing that locks down what can be loaded. This mostly is because of decoding legalities It's because of DRM. Nothing here benefits the customer. > Who becomes liable if your privacy, assets, or even the device, are compromised because you were able to load software not vetted? You, the owner, of course. > Do you want a world where you need a virus scan program for your phone? Like on Android? > I look at it this way, you have a choice in what you buy You don't. That's the whole point of walled gardens, taking that choice away from you.
  - theklr 6y ago
    Umm. You choose to live in that walled garden or not, so if I choose to have “that choice” taken away from me, that’s still choice.
    - sifar 6y ago
      >> I choose to have “that choice” taken away from me, that’s still choice This is a great example of Orwellian doublethink.
jug 6y ago
So the only realistic alternative is Android and that one is funded by an advertising company eager to sell your habits at every opportunity.
- sjwright 6y ago
  Is that Apple's fault?
sjwright 6y ago
For me it’s because that approval process is highly valuable to me as a consumer, and especially as the family member of other consumers. I happily pay more per device to have Apple as the systems administrator for my device. If I want software freedom I’ll use my laptop.
cwhiz 6y ago
Are you talking about the Xbox, PS4, and Nintendo Switch? Oh, the iPhone? Yeah people don’t care. Having Apple vet apps is a benefit, not a curse.
- Hamuko 6y ago
  Out of those examples, the only ones properly vetting apps are Sony and Microsoft. Nintendo and Apple are notorious for peddling shitty apps to consumers.
  - klmadfejno 6y ago
    What "shitty app" can you download in the Nintendo Switch shop?
    - Hamuko 6y ago
      There's so much shit on the eShop. One example: there was a game listed for sale that used stolen assets from the Legend of Zelda. https://gamerant.com/final-sword-switch-eshop-remove-legend-of-zelda-soundtrack-steal/ https://gamerant.com/final-sword-switch-eshop-remove-legend-... It was apparently a $17 game. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XGenCEgOy9g https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XGenCEgOy9g
  - cwhiz 6y ago
    The parent was complaining about Apple being a filter on the apps that users can install on their phones. But that type of restriction is basically the industry norm.
    - Hamuko 6y ago
      What industry? Because I don't see gaming consoles being part of the same industry as smartphones.
      - chewmieser 6y ago
        They're all "app stores" that block alternative sources. All of them distribute games and entertainment apps (music, video, etc). Sony has also distributed apps not related to entertainment, e.g. folding@home. Saying a console != a smartphone doesn't help discussion when what we're discussing is walled gardens here.
skc 6y ago
Heh, I'm at this point waiting patiently for Apple to wage war on PWAs as they start to gain in popularity.
- foxdev 6y ago
  The original vision for the iPhone was as a console for loading web apps. https://www.macstories.net/stories/before-the-app-store-the-sweet-solution-of-web-apps-and-developers-relentless-passion/ https://www.macstories.net/stories/before-the-app-store-the-... https://9to5mac.com/2011/10/21/jobs-original-vision-for-the-iphone-no-third-party-native-apps/ https://9to5mac.com/2011/10/21/jobs-original-vision-for-the-...
zeroimpl 6y ago
What great features do Android users get as a result of being able to sideload apps which aren’t available on the App Store? I believe the (weak) answer to the above is the answer to your question. Features are what matters to the majority of users. The ability to sideload apps itself is not.
- thekyle 6y ago
  Well for example you can't run a torrent client on iOS.
- IvanK_net 6y ago
  So let's say you buy a game for $10 and the creator gets only $7 (as Apple keeps $3). But there could be an alterative app store, where the same game would be sold for $9, and the creator would get $8 (the store would keep $1). So the reason is, that with competition, the price of software could decrease and you would save money. I don't mind that Apple keeps a large commission. But I mind the fact, that Apple has a monopoly on iOS software distribution, and the monopoly is always bad for the customers.
kenjackson 6y ago
MOST of the devices I buy the only SW that runs on it is from the manufacturer (either directly or indirectly). The only devices I get SW from other sources is my computer, phone, and watch -- at least as far as I can recall. And while my computer is a Windows PC and my phone an iPhone - I have never once thought that I'd have access to more/better SW if the iPhone was more open like my PC. I get what you're saying, but it is so far down the list of concerns for most consumers as to be a complete non-factor.
uberduper 6y ago
Can you really be a HN reader and continue to feign ignorance on this point? Go read the comments on any article that mentions Apple (like this one) and you will see the pros and cons repeated 10s of times. You understand full well, you just don't agree. That's fine, but not really worthy of discussion anymore.
wlll 6y ago
It's a balancing act. I trust Apple to keep my security and privacy as a priority, and to keep my iOS device up to date and secure, but I can't install things from outside the app store. I don't trust the android ecosystem in the slightest bit (to the extent that I don't like people connecting to my wifi with their random android devices) to be secure, but I could install whatever I wanted.
jayd16 6y ago
>I still wonder why so many people buy devices Because the hardware has a lot of direct advantages (Apple has the best chips) as well as user service lock (iTunes, iMessage).

m-p-3 6y ago

> I still wonder why so many people buy devices, where the only software you could run has to be approved by the manufacturer. Because most of them don't really care until it directly impacts them, and because Apple spends a huge amount of money on their marketing.

foxdev 6y ago

I only do a handful of things on my phone, and I need it to do those things reliably. My new laptop, on the other hand, opens with a Philips head screwdriver and almost everything can be replaced or upgraded. Different priorities for different needs.

Broken_Hippo 6y ago

Lack of realistic choice. If you are the average consumer looking to buy a smartphone, you have the choice of either Android or Apple. You get more choice with a PC, to an extent - the average consumer is going to get to choose between Microsoft, something like a chromebook, or apple. (Most folks buy mainstream, widely available products that work out of the box). I'm not sure the market for non-standard products is that high. A non-significant number of folks wouldn't put anything on their computer that hasn't been approved for fear of "bad things".

skohan 6y ago
Windows, Apple and Chromebooks are all proprietary platforms. With PC you also have the choice to install Linux, which is the categorical difference. With smartphones there's not really an open choice available.
- Broken_Hippo 6y ago
  I specifically didn't mention Linux because Linux isn't a realistic choice for the average consumer, though. Realistic choices come commonly pre-installed and works with a range of things without much work for the end consumer. Most folks don't have the choice to install it due to lack of technical competence anyway. Even folks with the technical know-how often enough don't due to, well, ease of use issues. (Yes, I know you can buy computers without an OS and you can buy computes with Linux as well - but not enough to be realistic for most folks. I'm pretty sure you can buy phones with a different OS as well but again, not realistic choices).
  - sensanaty 6y ago
    Linux is pretty user friendly these days though, Ubuntu and Mint are perfectly usable even if you're not a poweruser. Maybe that's just the developer in me falsely believing people are more competent than they actually are, though.
    - dividedbyzero 6y ago
      The issue isn't using it, it's getting it set up, working with all hardware, getting everything that's needed installed across different repositories, configuring everything the way it's needed, then keeping it running, survive updates, and fixing it when it breaks, which desktop Linux is still very prone to (apt dependency conflicts have wrecked beyond repair many Linux installs I've run). At some point, you have to have a pretty deep understanding of how Linux and computers work to Google the right things, and then understand and apply a fix – or worse, you may have to work out one on your own, which may entail things like reading source code and patching stuff; I'd say I'm somewhat competent as far as running Linux goes, and I've had numerous issues over the years that I was unable to fix, mundane but non-negotiable things like "getting sound to work". Best case, that'll just require more or less heavy command line usage, which only a tiny minority of people have ever used before and which is highly non-intuitive at first. That amounts to building a very comprehensive set of skills that is completely worthless to most people otherwise, and that you don't need for Windows or macOS, let alone Android/iOS.
ocdtrekkie 6y ago
Lack of realistic choice indeed. Only reason I'm writing this from an iPhone is because every other retail quality mobile device runs freaking Android.

wodenokoto 6y ago

> where the only software you could run has to be approved by the manufacturer. My two reasons: 1. I bought cellphones before the iPhone. This is nothing new. 2. I don't need everything to run on my phone. The amount of things I can't run on my phone, but wish I could is incredibly tiny, compared to the perceived additional utility my iphone gives me compared to my last Android or dumbphone. Moreover, I also own a Nintendo Switch and am considering buying a Playstation. I think as a consumer, I am not alone in accepting that certain devices will only run manufacturer approved software.

badsectoracula 6y ago
Yes but why? Why not demand to be able to have control over your own devices?
- ericmay 6y ago
  Because we don’t want control over our Nintendo switch or iPhone.
  - m-p-3 6y ago
    I still wish OtherOS[1] was still a thing on PlayStation systems. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OtherOS https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OtherOS
  - badsectoracula 6y ago
    But why? What is the benefit of giving up that control?
    - ericmay 6y ago
      I lose the App Store, Apple leading the way by enforcing privacy standards, and many other things. Having control isn’t always a good thing. The benefit of having control here “download another App Store” isn’t much of a benefit to me. I love the way things are. That’s why I have an iPhone.

alkonaut 6y ago

> I still wonder why so many people buy devices, where the only software you could run has to be approved by the manufacturer. Because many of us feel that the alternative (The nightmare that is the desktop PC application ecosystem) would be far worse, especially on a smartphone.

badsectoracula 6y ago
How is having control over what you can install on your own PC and being in a position to actually choose from where to install it a nightmare? Is being in control and having choice a nightmare?
- ericmay 6y ago
  Well, you just look at the PC ecosystem and you can see the nightmare. Like others,I prefer Apple to have a tightly controlled App Store and believe that the benefits far outweigh the ability to install software from a 3rd party App Store. For example, Apple requiring Sign In with Apple (when signin with Google/Facebook are implemented) where you can hide your email address. That’s not possible with multiple app stores. Apple helps lead the way with privacy. If you want multiple app stores and all that, just buy an Android phone. iPhone is for people like me who want a tightly controlled experience. That’s the way it’s designed. You don’t buy a Corolla and get mad that you can’t off road with it, do you?
  - swiley 6y ago
    Here are just some reasons why android isn’t an alternative: Most ship with maleware that can’t be removed (or can’t be removed without giving up on updating the OS.) Android still doesn’t let you run a lot of 3rd party software (the latest version breaks Termux for example.) Apple’s anticompetitive behavior also ties people to the platform (iMessage is a great example of this. My family won’t use any other IM app so even if I buy another phone (which I have, it’s supposed to arrive in September) I’ll have to keep my iPhone just to talk to them.) Finally the hardware is just bad. Qualcomm does not make nice SOCs (IMO) but it could be just because the software they provide with them is complete garbage. There’s no alternative in the US either.

bluesign 6y ago

I don’t have problem with platform setting some standards and mostly I am happy with Apple put out there (as a developer too) Even though you can say mobile phones are general computing devices, actually for most of the people they are just media consumption devices. I believe technical restrictions are not enough in this age alone. As long as they have rules and it is applied fairly and equally, I prefer controlled and regulated market places.

breakfastduck 6y ago

I don't use my phone as a pc, I use it to run a few generic apps, make notes and reminders and, obviously, as a phone. iPhone does the trick for me in that regard, the app library is huge, the consistent design is great, the way it syncs with my macbook is irreplaceable. Being blocked from running arbitrary code on a phone is not a big deal to the vast majority of users. If that's a dealbreak, buy an android phone. But lets not pretend that doesn't come with huge tradeoffs if you like what the iPhone provides.

grezql 6y ago

there is no equivalent alternative. Android is laggy, low-quality, malware-infested junk. Windows Phone was beginning to look good. It has great design, quick OS and apps. I wish Microsoft continued at low cost operative mode and just waited for the right opportunities like this.

Waterfall 6y ago
When was the last time you used Android? That sounds true of 2012 or so but not after. Android does have a poor status though, the value of it's phones drops precipitously every few months until it levels at $100-$200 a year later, or it was cheap in the first place and good like xiaomi. iPhones don't drop like that.

Shivetya 6y ago

Because it does not matter to the vast majority of people. In fact many appreciate that there is a gate keeper. There are so many categories where you cannot load software outside of what the manufacturer provides that you cannot list them. It would also be impractical to allow otherwise for many of these. Then you end up with warranty issues. Would you allow people to load software of their choice for their automobiles? Tesla is fighting this one now where people are paying a third party to boost their horsepower. Smart TVs usually are limited by their OS and encumbered by licensing that locks down what can be loaded. This mostly is because of decoding legalities Who becomes liable if your privacy, assets, or even the device, are compromised because you were able to load software not vetted? Do you want a world where you need a virus scan program for your phone? I look at it this way, you have a choice in what you buy, because a manufacturer does not adhere to your desire is by no means justification for forcing them to do so.

anoncake 6y ago
> Would you allow people to load software of their choice for their automobiles? Obviously yes. > Smart TVs usually are limited by their OS and encumbered by licensing that locks down what can be loaded. This mostly is because of decoding legalities It's because of DRM. Nothing here benefits the customer. > Who becomes liable if your privacy, assets, or even the device, are compromised because you were able to load software not vetted? You, the owner, of course. > Do you want a world where you need a virus scan program for your phone? Like on Android? > I look at it this way, you have a choice in what you buy You don't. That's the whole point of walled gardens, taking that choice away from you.
- theklr 6y ago
  Umm. You choose to live in that walled garden or not, so if I choose to have “that choice” taken away from me, that’s still choice.
  - sifar 6y ago
    >> I choose to have “that choice” taken away from me, that’s still choice This is a great example of Orwellian doublethink.

jug 6y ago

So the only realistic alternative is Android and that one is funded by an advertising company eager to sell your habits at every opportunity.

sjwright 6y ago
Is that Apple's fault?

sjwright 6y ago

For me it’s because that approval process is highly valuable to me as a consumer, and especially as the family member of other consumers. I happily pay more per device to have Apple as the systems administrator for my device. If I want software freedom I’ll use my laptop.

cwhiz 6y ago

Are you talking about the Xbox, PS4, and Nintendo Switch? Oh, the iPhone? Yeah people don’t care. Having Apple vet apps is a benefit, not a curse.

Hamuko 6y ago
Out of those examples, the only ones properly vetting apps are Sony and Microsoft. Nintendo and Apple are notorious for peddling shitty apps to consumers.
- klmadfejno 6y ago
  What "shitty app" can you download in the Nintendo Switch shop?
  - Hamuko 6y ago
    There's so much shit on the eShop. One example: there was a game listed for sale that used stolen assets from the Legend of Zelda. https://gamerant.com/final-sword-switch-eshop-remove-legend-of-zelda-soundtrack-steal/ https://gamerant.com/final-sword-switch-eshop-remove-legend-... It was apparently a $17 game. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XGenCEgOy9g https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XGenCEgOy9g
- cwhiz 6y ago
  The parent was complaining about Apple being a filter on the apps that users can install on their phones. But that type of restriction is basically the industry norm.
  - Hamuko 6y ago
    What industry? Because I don't see gaming consoles being part of the same industry as smartphones.
    - chewmieser 6y ago
      They're all "app stores" that block alternative sources. All of them distribute games and entertainment apps (music, video, etc). Sony has also distributed apps not related to entertainment, e.g. folding@home. Saying a console != a smartphone doesn't help discussion when what we're discussing is walled gardens here.

skc 6y ago

Heh, I'm at this point waiting patiently for Apple to wage war on PWAs as they start to gain in popularity.

foxdev 6y ago
The original vision for the iPhone was as a console for loading web apps. https://www.macstories.net/stories/before-the-app-store-the-sweet-solution-of-web-apps-and-developers-relentless-passion/ https://www.macstories.net/stories/before-the-app-store-the-... https://9to5mac.com/2011/10/21/jobs-original-vision-for-the-iphone-no-third-party-native-apps/ https://9to5mac.com/2011/10/21/jobs-original-vision-for-the-...

zeroimpl 6y ago

What great features do Android users get as a result of being able to sideload apps which aren’t available on the App Store? I believe the (weak) answer to the above is the answer to your question. Features are what matters to the majority of users. The ability to sideload apps itself is not.

thekyle 6y ago
Well for example you can't run a torrent client on iOS.
IvanK_net 6y ago
So let's say you buy a game for $10 and the creator gets only $7 (as Apple keeps $3). But there could be an alterative app store, where the same game would be sold for $9, and the creator would get $8 (the store would keep $1). So the reason is, that with competition, the price of software could decrease and you would save money. I don't mind that Apple keeps a large commission. But I mind the fact, that Apple has a monopoly on iOS software distribution, and the monopoly is always bad for the customers.

kenjackson 6y ago

MOST of the devices I buy the only SW that runs on it is from the manufacturer (either directly or indirectly). The only devices I get SW from other sources is my computer, phone, and watch -- at least as far as I can recall. And while my computer is a Windows PC and my phone an iPhone - I have never once thought that I'd have access to more/better SW if the iPhone was more open like my PC. I get what you're saying, but it is so far down the list of concerns for most consumers as to be a complete non-factor.

uberduper 6y ago

Can you really be a HN reader and continue to feign ignorance on this point? Go read the comments on any article that mentions Apple (like this one) and you will see the pros and cons repeated 10s of times. You understand full well, you just don't agree. That's fine, but not really worthy of discussion anymore.

wlll 6y ago

It's a balancing act. I trust Apple to keep my security and privacy as a priority, and to keep my iOS device up to date and secure, but I can't install things from outside the app store. I don't trust the android ecosystem in the slightest bit (to the extent that I don't like people connecting to my wifi with their random android devices) to be secure, but I could install whatever I wanted.

jayd16 6y ago

>I still wonder why so many people buy devices Because the hardware has a lot of direct advantages (Apple has the best chips) as well as user service lock (iTunes, iMessage).