17 ms·

> many of us don’t want our iPads or iPhones to be like our computers And many of us do. I would never buy a locked-down piece of hardware like that. But I don

> many of us don’t want our iPads or iPhones to be like our computers And many of us do. I would never buy a locked-down piece of hardware like that. But I don't think it matters either way what either side wants, because it's what Apple wants that matters. They want to keep their walled garden's walls air tight, and there are apparently enough people that are OK living in that garden that it works. I'm positive that they have done the calculus that they'll make more money in the long/short term by behaving this way. Google did a similar calculus, with a different set of values (if not an entirely different set of variables altogether) and came up with a different answer. Although it's interesting to see how their position has shifted over the years to be a bit more like Apple in some regards. Regardless, the point is they don't care what you want once they've gotten to the point of getting your money. Past that, they only care about maximizing their profit.

judge2020 5y ago
There are many other devices locked down much more than iOS devices and this argument would apply to them as well. The only reason apple is the subject is because people want to take advantage of the massive, expensive engineering work that has happened over the past 15 years (in both hardware and software) without any of the limitations that go towards actually paying for that engineering effort (and enable many high-security use cases). If apple's product sucked and had horrible UX nobody would care.
- roofwellhams 5y ago
  You already paying 1000usd for an iphone. How much more is it worth?
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
gjsman-1000 5y ago
Like everything in technology, you have a choice. If you want openness at the expense of security and privacy, you can purchase an Android or Windows device. If you want security and privacy more than openness, you buy an iPhone. The Hacker News crowd is unique in that we want to have our cake and eat it too by making the iPhone work more like Android and expressing outrage that such a choice exists. So even though I wish iPhone would become more open, I find it strange that people are saying that we must break the iPhones App Store requirement to increase choice, even though that removes the choice to have a safer but locked down experience from the market.
- realusername 5y ago
  What if you got a used phone or tablet though? Are you just supposed to throw it away to the trash and get another one because the manufacturer doesn't approve you using it? And what about devices which aren't supported anymore?
  - bombcar 5y ago
    I think an interesting attack on this loophole would be a law that requires that the relevant signing keys/bootloader access be opened 1-3 years after official support for the hardware ends. Sure this would complicate things a bit (Apple would have to have different keys for different hardware revisions), but it would allow devices to be "officially" jailbroken after support ends.
    - gjsman-1000 5y ago
      Like this, I would really support this. However, Apple would probably point out the Third World countries might have more obsolete devices coupled with more oppressive governments and that puts them at more risk or something.
      - realusername 5y ago
        obsolete devices aren't maintained anymore, the only security you get against known attacks is provided by the community, not from Apple.
    - zepto 5y ago
      I would support opening it as soon as the first unsupported software release is made available.
  - rodgerd 5y ago
    That would be great in theory, but in practice it's far more straightforward to run an iOS device for many, many years (supported by Apple, no less) than to run a device that ships with Android.
mumblemumble 5y ago
Google probably didn't do any real calculus, and I strongly doubt it was anything like a principled decision. They probably just realized that it simply wasn't an option. Android lacks the vertical integration that iOS has. It would have been extremely difficult, if not impossible, for Google to get Android licensees to accept such a heavily walled garden. Remember that this decision was made over a decade ago, back when there were many competitors - both software and hardware vendors - vying for a foothold in the smartphone market. Google trying to flex its muscles too much would have sent its licensees scurrying toward competitors.
- jsight 5y ago
  IDK, AT&T used to lock out third party apps on their Android phones. It didn't go over well and was eventually reversed. I think they stayed in that state for a few years, though.
  - mumblemumble 5y ago
    It's probably better to think of that as AT&T trying to continue the thing they were already doing with feature phones, than as Google trying to make Android as locked down as iOS is. For starters, it's something AT&T did with just the phones they were selling, not something Google did with the Android platform or Android phone makers like LG and Samsung did with their phones.
    - jsight 5y ago
      True, and more specifically it was AT&T making their early Android phones into Android iPhones. This was still pretty close to the era when the iPhone was an AT&T exclusive. It was terrible and I believe they sold pretty poorly. My point is that the mumblemumble seemed to think that Google had no choice in the matter. I think they clearly did and for the most part clearly opted to keep the third party door open at the time. Granted, Android was much more open back then overall.
      - mumblemumble 5y ago
dmitriid 5y ago
> Google did a similar calculus, with a different set of values (if not an entirely different set of variables altogether) and came up with a different answer. Although it's interesting to see how their position has shifted over the years to be a bit more like Apple in some regards. It didn't shift. Google had the same calculus with the same answers. Only Google never had the hardware, so AOSP was a way to make sure Android is everywhere. There's a great Ars Technica article about this: https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2011/09/owning-the-stack-the-legal-war-for-control-of-the-smartphone-platform/ https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2011/09/owning-the-stack... They all want to own the smartphone stack.
api 5y ago
> Google did a similar calculus, with a different set of values (if not an entirely different set of variables altogether) and came up with a different answer. Their answer isn't openness, it's surveillance. Google is a surveillance driven ad company.
- danShumway 5y ago
  I'm not sure I understand how FDroid makes it easier for Google to survey me. I don't see how Google, which controls the default apps, which can give them whatever privileges it wants at an OS-level, needs an Open platform to monitor me. If anything, wouldn't Google have more incentive than iOS to lock the platform down, since it doesn't want the competition from apps like Facebook that are competing in the same data-driven ad space? Edit: Not sure why people are taking offense at this. Google doesn't need the web to be open, that's a talking point that comes up every time we talk about Chrome -- Google only needs its own ad network to function. Android is the same; why does Google need Android to be Open? They don't need the ability to sideload apps. Google Maps is installed by default, all of their apps are contractually required to be installed by default if you want access to the Play Store. If Google removed the ability to sideload today, none of their apps would get removed from your phone.
threeseed 5y ago
Apple sells $20-30 billion worth of iPads each year. I think they might just survive without your business. And pretty sure it demonstrates that their formula of security and privacy over openness is the right one for them.
- caddybox 5y ago
  > Apple sells $20-30 billion worth of iPads each year. > I think they might just survive without your business. The parent post makes some the argument that the restrictive nature of iOS makes it unappealing to certain users. You counter that with a discussion-ending argument about how much money Apple makes. Not everything that makes billions of dollars is immune to criticism. Especially since Apple markets the iPad as a "computer", a term that traditionally referred to unrestricted computing devices.
  - jeromegv 5y ago
    The money is about showing that there is a market for people who do NOT want what this other user finds appealing. Saying "no" is as important as saying "yes" when it comes to adding features to a platform.
  - gjsman-1000 5y ago
    I think a broader point is that iPhones will never be the choice of people who want openness, and if the OP had a chance to talk to an Apple engineer, the engineer would probably tell him to use Android because the iPhone isn’t meant for people who need openness, but for those who want to trade freedom for an experience that mostly “just works” as they would say. Also, Apple knows as much as anyone that terms change over time. Last week the RSA experts were angry that “crypto” now meant “cryptocurrency” instead of the historical “cryptography”.
  - squeaky-clean 5y ago
    > makes it unappealing to certain users. You counter that with a discussion-ending argument about how much money Apple makes. For a business that makes it's money from consumer spending habits, I think this is a perfectly valid argument. Apple isn't a utility company or something the users are locked in to. If they decided openness was more important, why are they still buying so many iPhones?
m_a_g 5y ago
Considering the average user, I think you are in the minority. Still, I don't think there has to be a choice between one and the other.
dylan604 5y ago
>I would never buy a locked-down piece of hardware like that Do you own an Xbox or Playstation? Do you own a SmartTV?
- vcxy 5y ago
  I'm not who you replied to, but I find this interesting. It seems like you're asking rhetorically, but the answer for me is no. I expect I'm not alone. I do own an old Kindle Paperwhite, which I assume is fairly locked down? I'm not actually sure.
  - pwinnski 5y ago
    The Paperwhite is indeed locked down.
    - vcxy 5y ago
      Figured as much. It's been in airplane mode the entire time I've owned it and I just put books on it with calibre. I guess this somehow mirrors how some people feel about their Apple devices? They don't notice it being locked down because it already does what they want? The other alternative is what I can't relate to at all: the device doesn't do what they want due to being locked down, but they're ok with the trade-off. I don't have a problem with it, but I can't relate.
      - dylan604 5y ago
        This is what I don't get as well. The limitations of the devices are well known. Why would you drop the money on a thing that doesn't do what you want it to do? Just because someone feels a device has the ability to do something other than what it is actually doing doesn't mean the vendor has to allow it to do that thing. It was designed and tested against what the vendor wants it to do. Allowing it to do other untested thing just means more support headaches down the road.
      - pwinnski 5y ago
        I use both an iPhone and a Kindle Paperwhite. Like yours, my Paperwhite has been in airplane mode since I bought it, and I've never cared about missing anything on iOS either. I am well aware that of the choice I'm making, and will continue to make the same choice in both cases.
squeaky-clean 5y ago
Don't buy an iPhone then. I used to be all about customizing my phone, but when the "Phone" app on my android crashed repeatedly while trying to call 911 in an emergency, I now only want a locked-down and stable piece of hardware as my phone.
- notsureaboutpg 5y ago
  Well as the main comment pointed out. The lament is that the strongest mobile hardware out there at the moment is also locked down. Would be nice to have the option for a not locked down piece of that hardware, and we do not wish that you don't have the option for a locked down stable piece of hardware.
- mustacheemperor 5y ago
  Similar feelings here. I switched after becoming frustrated by having a phone that so often failed at basic phone things. Turn by turn nav silently ending because I switched to the browser, having a phone call crash because I accidentally opened Snapchat - and that’s before approaching the eldrich nightmare that was trying to run a video call. This was on a “flagship” Samsung Android phone and I have heard the OS is better and more stable now but honestly, I just don’t see a reason to risk it, especially given the switching costs associated.
epanchin 5y ago
I gave my grandmother a iPad because I felt confident that she could not install anything nasty, nor could be tricked into installing anything nasty. If Apple allowed you to unlock your iPad, they would also be allowing my grandmother to be scammed into unlocking hers. Building a walled garden was a great decision for consumers by Apple, and if it was profit driven then that’s +1 for capitalism.
tisFine 5y ago
I keep hearing about walled gardens, and not how it’s merely a choice among many. Linux works on tablets and phones. What’s that? It’s a janky mess? Maybe developers could stop looking at the green grass on Apples side of the fence and bring that polish to open-source. But I imagine that will simply devolve into the mess it already is, with flame wars, and figurative genital punching to prove how hardcore one is for the obfuscated C they cobbled together. There was time when Linux distributions were thought of as walled gardens. Cobble together just the right collection of source for you! Don’t let Red Hat control your mind! SystemD is a cage for your soul! Meanwhile, Apple just got the damn job done and moved on. If it’s a choice between masochistic elitism or filtered content. Hmmm…
- rcoveson 5y ago
  > There was time when Linux distributions were thought of as walled gardens. Cobble together just the right collection of source for you! Don’t let Red Hat control your mind! No, that's just a garden. A garden is where a single trusted entity cultivates the plants it wants in the way it wants. It has boundaries, but not necessarily walls. Walled gardens are a strict subset of gardens. A walled garden doesn't let you go out and forage from the wilds to augment the produce of the garden.
  - tisFine 5y ago
    Neither does Apple’s App Store; users can pick Linux. Anyone pushing into the App Store specifically then complaining has their own initial choice to blame. But of course that can’t be right…
    - rcoveson 5y ago
      Linux distros offer a lower-case "app store", a "garden", while also allowing you to straddle the line between the garden and the outside. On the same device, at your own discretion. They don't make it any more difficult than it has to be. iOS is a "walled garden" because it requires you to be in or out. Like you say, you can "pick Linux", but that's not tearing down walls. That's just leaving the walled area. The frustration with Apple isn't the fact that they're forcing anybody to use their stuff. It's that they make a lot of cool stuff, and then they go out of their way to make it difficult to use anything not Apple-sanctioned on their stuff. Most OSes don't do this. I like the Linux distro approach better: Provide a garden, but also allow the installation of stuff from other gardens, or from the wilds. I don't know why you're being derisive of people who have only "their own initial choice to blame". I choose to live in the city where I live, and that has downsides. I even knew those downsides going in! But that doesn't mean I have no right to complain about the downsides. Maybe the upsides still make it worth it to me, and I'm just pushing for a world where I can have those while also fixing what I think is wrong with the place.
reledi 5y ago
> They want to keep their walled garden's walls air tight, and there are apparently enough people that are OK living in that garden that it works. For many, including me, it's not some inconvenience that we are okay with. We see it as a selling point. I've tried them all and Apple's balance of openness/security/quality is the best I've experienced. If they follow the direction of others, I'd probably jump ship.
jezfromfuture 5y ago
Yes Google calculated that users privacy means jack , users security means jack but as long as you can do what you want on ur phone and they can siphon off your data it’s all good. Hate apple as much as u like but I’m very happy they lock the shit down and don’t turn it into my pc , my phone is for calls an texts privacy is important running bullshit is not.
valuearb 5y ago
The market has spoken. iPad revenues are higher than all the other tablets combined.
bitwize 5y ago
You are going to have to accept that "general purpose computers" are a niche market. The general public strongly prefers a locked-down, curated experience where the vendor takes responsibility for assuring that the content for the device is of sufficient quality and will not bring harm to themselves or their device. What's more, Google is re-doing their calculus -- and reaching the same conclusion that Apple did. More restrictions are being implemented into Android with each major release.

judge2020 5y ago

There are many other devices locked down much more than iOS devices and this argument would apply to them as well. The only reason apple is the subject is because people want to take advantage of the massive, expensive engineering work that has happened over the past 15 years (in both hardware and software) without any of the limitations that go towards actually paying for that engineering effort (and enable many high-security use cases). If apple's product sucked and had horrible UX nobody would care.

roofwellhams 5y ago
You already paying 1000usd for an iphone. How much more is it worth?
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

gjsman-1000 5y ago

Like everything in technology, you have a choice. If you want openness at the expense of security and privacy, you can purchase an Android or Windows device. If you want security and privacy more than openness, you buy an iPhone. The Hacker News crowd is unique in that we want to have our cake and eat it too by making the iPhone work more like Android and expressing outrage that such a choice exists. So even though I wish iPhone would become more open, I find it strange that people are saying that we must break the iPhones App Store requirement to increase choice, even though that removes the choice to have a safer but locked down experience from the market.

realusername 5y ago
What if you got a used phone or tablet though? Are you just supposed to throw it away to the trash and get another one because the manufacturer doesn't approve you using it? And what about devices which aren't supported anymore?
- bombcar 5y ago
  I think an interesting attack on this loophole would be a law that requires that the relevant signing keys/bootloader access be opened 1-3 years after official support for the hardware ends. Sure this would complicate things a bit (Apple would have to have different keys for different hardware revisions), but it would allow devices to be "officially" jailbroken after support ends.
  - gjsman-1000 5y ago
    Like this, I would really support this. However, Apple would probably point out the Third World countries might have more obsolete devices coupled with more oppressive governments and that puts them at more risk or something.
    - realusername 5y ago
      obsolete devices aren't maintained anymore, the only security you get against known attacks is provided by the community, not from Apple.
  - zepto 5y ago
    I would support opening it as soon as the first unsupported software release is made available.
- rodgerd 5y ago
  That would be great in theory, but in practice it's far more straightforward to run an iOS device for many, many years (supported by Apple, no less) than to run a device that ships with Android.

mumblemumble 5y ago

Google probably didn't do any real calculus, and I strongly doubt it was anything like a principled decision. They probably just realized that it simply wasn't an option. Android lacks the vertical integration that iOS has. It would have been extremely difficult, if not impossible, for Google to get Android licensees to accept such a heavily walled garden. Remember that this decision was made over a decade ago, back when there were many competitors - both software and hardware vendors - vying for a foothold in the smartphone market. Google trying to flex its muscles too much would have sent its licensees scurrying toward competitors.

jsight 5y ago
IDK, AT&T used to lock out third party apps on their Android phones. It didn't go over well and was eventually reversed. I think they stayed in that state for a few years, though.
- mumblemumble 5y ago
  It's probably better to think of that as AT&T trying to continue the thing they were already doing with feature phones, than as Google trying to make Android as locked down as iOS is. For starters, it's something AT&T did with just the phones they were selling, not something Google did with the Android platform or Android phone makers like LG and Samsung did with their phones.
  - jsight 5y ago
    True, and more specifically it was AT&T making their early Android phones into Android iPhones. This was still pretty close to the era when the iPhone was an AT&T exclusive. It was terrible and I believe they sold pretty poorly. My point is that the mumblemumble seemed to think that Google had no choice in the matter. I think they clearly did and for the most part clearly opted to keep the third party door open at the time. Granted, Android was much more open back then overall.
    - mumblemumble 5y ago

dmitriid 5y ago

> Google did a similar calculus, with a different set of values (if not an entirely different set of variables altogether) and came up with a different answer. Although it's interesting to see how their position has shifted over the years to be a bit more like Apple in some regards. It didn't shift. Google had the same calculus with the same answers. Only Google never had the hardware, so AOSP was a way to make sure Android is everywhere. There's a great Ars Technica article about this: https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2011/09/owning-the-stack-the-legal-war-for-control-of-the-smartphone-platform/ https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2011/09/owning-the-stack... They all want to own the smartphone stack.

api 5y ago

> Google did a similar calculus, with a different set of values (if not an entirely different set of variables altogether) and came up with a different answer. Their answer isn't openness, it's surveillance. Google is a surveillance driven ad company.

danShumway 5y ago
I'm not sure I understand how FDroid makes it easier for Google to survey me. I don't see how Google, which controls the default apps, which can give them whatever privileges it wants at an OS-level, needs an Open platform to monitor me. If anything, wouldn't Google have more incentive than iOS to lock the platform down, since it doesn't want the competition from apps like Facebook that are competing in the same data-driven ad space? Edit: Not sure why people are taking offense at this. Google doesn't need the web to be open, that's a talking point that comes up every time we talk about Chrome -- Google only needs its own ad network to function. Android is the same; why does Google need Android to be Open? They don't need the ability to sideload apps. Google Maps is installed by default, all of their apps are contractually required to be installed by default if you want access to the Play Store. If Google removed the ability to sideload today, none of their apps would get removed from your phone.

threeseed 5y ago

Apple sells $20-30 billion worth of iPads each year. I think they might just survive without your business. And pretty sure it demonstrates that their formula of security and privacy over openness is the right one for them.

caddybox 5y ago
> Apple sells $20-30 billion worth of iPads each year. > I think they might just survive without your business. The parent post makes some the argument that the restrictive nature of iOS makes it unappealing to certain users. You counter that with a discussion-ending argument about how much money Apple makes. Not everything that makes billions of dollars is immune to criticism. Especially since Apple markets the iPad as a "computer", a term that traditionally referred to unrestricted computing devices.
- jeromegv 5y ago
  The money is about showing that there is a market for people who do NOT want what this other user finds appealing. Saying "no" is as important as saying "yes" when it comes to adding features to a platform.
- gjsman-1000 5y ago
  I think a broader point is that iPhones will never be the choice of people who want openness, and if the OP had a chance to talk to an Apple engineer, the engineer would probably tell him to use Android because the iPhone isn’t meant for people who need openness, but for those who want to trade freedom for an experience that mostly “just works” as they would say. Also, Apple knows as much as anyone that terms change over time. Last week the RSA experts were angry that “crypto” now meant “cryptocurrency” instead of the historical “cryptography”.
- squeaky-clean 5y ago
  > makes it unappealing to certain users. You counter that with a discussion-ending argument about how much money Apple makes. For a business that makes it's money from consumer spending habits, I think this is a perfectly valid argument. Apple isn't a utility company or something the users are locked in to. If they decided openness was more important, why are they still buying so many iPhones?

m_a_g 5y ago

Considering the average user, I think you are in the minority. Still, I don't think there has to be a choice between one and the other.

dylan604 5y ago

>I would never buy a locked-down piece of hardware like that Do you own an Xbox or Playstation? Do you own a SmartTV?

vcxy 5y ago
I'm not who you replied to, but I find this interesting. It seems like you're asking rhetorically, but the answer for me is no. I expect I'm not alone. I do own an old Kindle Paperwhite, which I assume is fairly locked down? I'm not actually sure.
- pwinnski 5y ago
  The Paperwhite is indeed locked down.
  - vcxy 5y ago
    Figured as much. It's been in airplane mode the entire time I've owned it and I just put books on it with calibre. I guess this somehow mirrors how some people feel about their Apple devices? They don't notice it being locked down because it already does what they want? The other alternative is what I can't relate to at all: the device doesn't do what they want due to being locked down, but they're ok with the trade-off. I don't have a problem with it, but I can't relate.
    - dylan604 5y ago
      This is what I don't get as well. The limitations of the devices are well known. Why would you drop the money on a thing that doesn't do what you want it to do? Just because someone feels a device has the ability to do something other than what it is actually doing doesn't mean the vendor has to allow it to do that thing. It was designed and tested against what the vendor wants it to do. Allowing it to do other untested thing just means more support headaches down the road.
    - pwinnski 5y ago
      I use both an iPhone and a Kindle Paperwhite. Like yours, my Paperwhite has been in airplane mode since I bought it, and I've never cared about missing anything on iOS either. I am well aware that of the choice I'm making, and will continue to make the same choice in both cases.

squeaky-clean 5y ago

Don't buy an iPhone then. I used to be all about customizing my phone, but when the "Phone" app on my android crashed repeatedly while trying to call 911 in an emergency, I now only want a locked-down and stable piece of hardware as my phone.

notsureaboutpg 5y ago
Well as the main comment pointed out. The lament is that the strongest mobile hardware out there at the moment is also locked down. Would be nice to have the option for a not locked down piece of that hardware, and we do not wish that you don't have the option for a locked down stable piece of hardware.
mustacheemperor 5y ago
Similar feelings here. I switched after becoming frustrated by having a phone that so often failed at basic phone things. Turn by turn nav silently ending because I switched to the browser, having a phone call crash because I accidentally opened Snapchat - and that’s before approaching the eldrich nightmare that was trying to run a video call. This was on a “flagship” Samsung Android phone and I have heard the OS is better and more stable now but honestly, I just don’t see a reason to risk it, especially given the switching costs associated.

epanchin 5y ago

I gave my grandmother a iPad because I felt confident that she could not install anything nasty, nor could be tricked into installing anything nasty. If Apple allowed you to unlock your iPad, they would also be allowing my grandmother to be scammed into unlocking hers. Building a walled garden was a great decision for consumers by Apple, and if it was profit driven then that’s +1 for capitalism.

tisFine 5y ago

I keep hearing about walled gardens, and not how it’s merely a choice among many. Linux works on tablets and phones. What’s that? It’s a janky mess? Maybe developers could stop looking at the green grass on Apples side of the fence and bring that polish to open-source. But I imagine that will simply devolve into the mess it already is, with flame wars, and figurative genital punching to prove how hardcore one is for the obfuscated C they cobbled together. There was time when Linux distributions were thought of as walled gardens. Cobble together just the right collection of source for you! Don’t let Red Hat control your mind! SystemD is a cage for your soul! Meanwhile, Apple just got the damn job done and moved on. If it’s a choice between masochistic elitism or filtered content. Hmmm…

rcoveson 5y ago
> There was time when Linux distributions were thought of as walled gardens. Cobble together just the right collection of source for you! Don’t let Red Hat control your mind! No, that's just a garden. A garden is where a single trusted entity cultivates the plants it wants in the way it wants. It has boundaries, but not necessarily walls. Walled gardens are a strict subset of gardens. A walled garden doesn't let you go out and forage from the wilds to augment the produce of the garden.
- tisFine 5y ago
  Neither does Apple’s App Store; users can pick Linux. Anyone pushing into the App Store specifically then complaining has their own initial choice to blame. But of course that can’t be right…
  - rcoveson 5y ago
    Linux distros offer a lower-case "app store", a "garden", while also allowing you to straddle the line between the garden and the outside. On the same device, at your own discretion. They don't make it any more difficult than it has to be. iOS is a "walled garden" because it requires you to be in or out. Like you say, you can "pick Linux", but that's not tearing down walls. That's just leaving the walled area. The frustration with Apple isn't the fact that they're forcing anybody to use their stuff. It's that they make a lot of cool stuff, and then they go out of their way to make it difficult to use anything not Apple-sanctioned on their stuff. Most OSes don't do this. I like the Linux distro approach better: Provide a garden, but also allow the installation of stuff from other gardens, or from the wilds. I don't know why you're being derisive of people who have only "their own initial choice to blame". I choose to live in the city where I live, and that has downsides. I even knew those downsides going in! But that doesn't mean I have no right to complain about the downsides. Maybe the upsides still make it worth it to me, and I'm just pushing for a world where I can have those while also fixing what I think is wrong with the place.

reledi 5y ago

> They want to keep their walled garden's walls air tight, and there are apparently enough people that are OK living in that garden that it works. For many, including me, it's not some inconvenience that we are okay with. We see it as a selling point. I've tried them all and Apple's balance of openness/security/quality is the best I've experienced. If they follow the direction of others, I'd probably jump ship.

jezfromfuture 5y ago

Yes Google calculated that users privacy means jack , users security means jack but as long as you can do what you want on ur phone and they can siphon off your data it’s all good. Hate apple as much as u like but I’m very happy they lock the shit down and don’t turn it into my pc , my phone is for calls an texts privacy is important running bullshit is not.

valuearb 5y ago

The market has spoken. iPad revenues are higher than all the other tablets combined.

bitwize 5y ago

You are going to have to accept that "general purpose computers" are a niche market. The general public strongly prefers a locked-down, curated experience where the vendor takes responsibility for assuring that the content for the device is of sufficient quality and will not bring harm to themselves or their device. What's more, Google is re-doing their calculus -- and reaching the same conclusion that Apple did. More restrictions are being implemented into Android with each major release.