4 ms·

I disagree that any of those things are "evil". Apple makes a product and service and clearly lays out what its for. Consumers can choose to buy into that or

by realize 15y ago

I disagree that any of those things are "evil". Apple makes a product and service and clearly lays out what its for. Consumers can choose to buy into that or not. Apple isn't "forcing" anyone to accept their terms, people choose to accept them in return for certain products and services from Apple. If you don't want to, don't buy an iphone! "just by having that data, they have a force to do evil" -- sorry, but having a force to do evil is not in itself evil. EVERYONE has a force to do evil, I could go and chop up some bunnies for fun right now, but I choose not to, therefore I'm not evil. How is serving you ads evil? I really don't get that argument. Yes it's annoying, and sometimes distracting, but again, the price I choose to pay for products and services. No one is forcing you to use gmail, even by default; there are plenty of other options.

sunkencity 15y ago
Well I "disagree" with "you". There's a lot at stake, depending on the fate of mobile web and computer interfaces in general, and privacy issues as well.
- realize 15y ago
  What would you rather be the case then? Let's say Apple don't restrict what you can do on your device, what does that look like? What do you think Apple should do differently, specifically?
  - fpgeek 15y ago
    In my opinion, Apple's original sin with iOS was banning side-loading. Many of the specific things they've done that I would call evil, for example: - squashing alternatives to built-in iOS apps - the attempt to ban iOS development in non-Apple-approved languages - the in-app purchase nonsense [apparently designed to prop up iBooks, among other things]) are only possible in the first place because of the side-loading ban. Making that one change (without changing the APIs, the App Store, approval policies, etc.) would go a long way towards fixing the aspects of the iOS platform that are problematic from the perspective of user freedom.
slowpoke 15y ago
>Apple isn't "forcing" anyone to accept their terms, people choose to accept them in return for certain products and services from Apple. The thing is, many people do not even know about, much less understand the ramifications of buying from Apple. And I find it sad that someone who does is still willing to castrate his own freedom for no gain whatsoever.

by realize 15y ago

sunkencity 15y ago

Well I "disagree" with "you". There's a lot at stake, depending on the fate of mobile web and computer interfaces in general, and privacy issues as well.

realize 15y ago
What would you rather be the case then? Let's say Apple don't restrict what you can do on your device, what does that look like? What do you think Apple should do differently, specifically?
- fpgeek 15y ago
  In my opinion, Apple's original sin with iOS was banning side-loading. Many of the specific things they've done that I would call evil, for example: - squashing alternatives to built-in iOS apps - the attempt to ban iOS development in non-Apple-approved languages - the in-app purchase nonsense [apparently designed to prop up iBooks, among other things]) are only possible in the first place because of the side-loading ban. Making that one change (without changing the APIs, the App Store, approval policies, etc.) would go a long way towards fixing the aspects of the iOS platform that are problematic from the perspective of user freedom.

slowpoke 15y ago

>Apple isn't "forcing" anyone to accept their terms, people choose to accept them in return for certain products and services from Apple. The thing is, many people do not even know about, much less understand the ramifications of buying from Apple. And I find it sad that someone who does is still willing to castrate his own freedom for no gain whatsoever.