8 ms·

>...(or better yet, Firefox Nightly) ... I think this is some of the disconnect between users on this site who don't understand why people would possibly activ

by lovich 4y ago

>...(or better yet, Firefox Nightly) ... I think this is some of the disconnect between users on this site who don't understand why people would possibly actively choose iOS even with the lockin. Most people do not want to use a product that is constantly updating and adding features in that are going to be taken out shortly, for something as basic nowadays as web browsing. If you're on the cool new technology people the average person likes rapid innovations. Once your tech is considered a commodity, then the average person wants a the equivalent of a toaster. Most people do not want to fiddle with their toasters or find out each day what new changes their toaster has. They want to put in bread, and get out toast. For browser, most people want to just be able to navigate to a handful of websites. The restrictions are a feature and not a bug.

brozaman 4y ago
> I think this is some of the disconnect between users on this site who don't understand why people would possibly actively choose iOS even with the lockin. Most people do not want to use a product that is constantly updating and adding features Precisely the reason why I have an iPhone and an iPad is because they give me 5 years of updates and even more of security fixes.
- yamtaddle 4y ago
  Firefox feels the need to scream at me every time it updates, which is all the time—far more often than iOS, and far more often than Safari. I think that's what the GP meant. FF does the equivalent of a major iOS update several times per year, as far as the user experience of the update is concerned—iOS doesn't fill my screen with on-launch "hi! We updated!" notices unless the release is a big one and there's actually new stuff to tell me about, in which case they usually keep it short and to the point. FF opens & foregrounds a new tab to tell me about the exciting update (ugh) and sometimes also pops some call-out bubbles for Pocket or some other crap, way, way more often than any other software I use, and it's really annoying, especially for a piece of software I've been using exactly the same way since it was called Phoenix and before some of the people working on it were born, probably—none of the shit in those announcements has ever, once, been anything I needed or wanted to know about. This, despite monkeying with UI and force-foregrounding unrequested content being UI poison for people with low computer literacy. I roll my eyes and close the crap; others get confused and are significantly delayed in doing whatever they actually wanted to do with the browser, on top of feeling confused and betrayed that their browser did something different when they opened it this time.
  - smolder 4y ago
    I don't remember the specifics of how to do it, but you can disable the Firefox upgrade welcome tab... My Firefox install hasn't bothered me by opening any unwanted tabs in a couple years, at least? But it still updates on a system restart or when I tell it to -- it just reloads all the previously opened tabs without any UX burden.
em-bee 4y ago
the recommendation for Firefox Nightly aside, noone is forced to accept constantly updating apps, and adding features that get removed after a short time is also an unfair characterization. i don't update Firefox more often than i want to, and even when i update, i rarely notice any changes. big changes come less than once a year. but i have the choice to update or switch browsers if i want to, and that's the point. the restrictions only remove choice. they don't add anything.
- lovich 4y ago
  I mean, I was referring specifically to firefox nightly in terms of adding features that can get removed. I confirmed before I posted the comment and it still a warning smack dab on their splash page. I use firefox on a daily basis personally.
loup-vaillant 4y ago
Excuse me, your conclusion doesn't seem to follow from your premises. I mean, "Please OS vendor I want something simple. That hidden `sideload` option is complicated, please lock down my machine." Like, seriously? No one's that stupid. Sure most people want a decent, clear default option, but no one want that to be the only option. At least not for themselves. Because for some reason I see many people arguing that other folks are too stupid for options and should be locked down instead. For their own… safety? convenience? And that just reeks of authoritarianism.
- anders_p 4y ago
  "No one's that stupid" 99.9% of people are not like you. They barely even know the difference between Windows and Google. People who got online when smartphones entered the scene have a difficult time when I try to explain what "folders" and "files" are. I do a lot of tech support for family and friends. They NEVER enter settings or preferences for their OS or their browser. They're afraid they'll "break something". The disconnect between tech literate people like you, and what they think most users want - or even care about - is mind blowing. Does anyone here remember the headache you'd get, when helping a family member, and you saw how many toolbars and viruses they'd managed to install, since you last checked their PC two months ago??? The lockdown is a feature - not a bug - in most user's minds. And I has made my life so much easier. I use Linux and side load apps. But I'm so, so, happy that none of my family members are even able to do the same.
  - lovich 4y ago
    >They're afraid they'll "break something". Right? I feel like my non technical social connections have an even greater learned helplessness from interacting with any sort of open to customization technology because they've learned that everytime they touch something the tool stops working in a way they don't understand. Most people are not going to spend days to weeks, and definitely not months to years learning how to tinker with and expertly maintain their technology. I feel like technologists in this forum are acting like blacksmiths who would scoff at any of us for having purchased a hammer, rather than smelting the ore, forging the head, and carving the handle so we could have one that fit our needs perfectly.
kajecounterhack 4y ago
Is it really a feature to not be allowed to use non-webkit Chrome on my iPhone, even if it might unlock superior features? Is it a feature that Google Fi can't work optimally on iPhone thanks to their anti-competitive restrictions? Is it a feature that I have to use Siri, which is way inferior to Google Assistant, when communicating in CarPlay? Is the planned obsolescence a feature too? My 12 year old Mac laptop is dead because MacOS does not allow me to upgrade past a certain version, and the cryptography primitives do not update past that so no recent browsers support the platform. My only recourse is linux. In the future this will not be possible either because normal Linux doesn't support the new hardware, unless Asahi Linux really manages to take off. I choose iOS because the hardware is good and _some_ of the software is good. I can't stand their business practices, and they don't actually get a lot of things right. They're just doing what MSFT wanted to do with their OS & software, except that they've monopolized the hardware too and somehow that's what protects them from antitrust.
- lovich 4y ago
  >Is it really a feature to not be allowed to use non-webkit Chrome on my iPhone, even if it might unlock superior features? Yes it is for many people. They do not want to risk the chance of their tool not working for some nebulous chance at a better experience. The vast majority of people are not tinkerer's at heart. The rest of your questions can all be answered with "Yes", as long as the tool does as expected. We are literally all in the 1% of people just to begin with by even configuring software in the first place.
  - wutbrodo 4y ago
    The example of Chrome on Windows given above seems to belie this claim. The "nebulous chance to use a better product" you refer to was apparently enough to trickle down to the non-tinkerers. Who's to say the same wouldn't be the case for eg Google Assistant vs Siri?
- lawgimenez 4y ago
  For the average of users they don't really mind if they're using WebKit or whatever stack underneath. My family just wants to open Safari and browse, and they don't give a shit about any of Apple's business.
zerodensity 4y ago
I'm pretty sure Apple updates it's browser just as much as Google chrome, firefox or edge is updated. Browsers in general do often change with new temporary user facing features. People choose iOS because it's a status symbol or they like the design of the interface. Not because they are afraid of updates.
mihaaly 4y ago
I am a user of browsers and though I like it the most the Firefox drives me crazy with the constant updating notices. I will never let any program auto update itself if I have a choice - sorry, I like to know if something is happening with the things I use - but the frequent bugging of the Firefox to update, update, update, update, update, update, update, update, update, update, update, update is driving me mad! Why the f*ck update?! The current version works just great!! One or two brought me noticable and interesting (thought still marginal in the overall purpose) changes throughout a perhaps 5 years window, the rest just bugging me and pushes self advertising 'what monumental new things we brought to you' pages on next start. Breaks the flow of use frequently, it is a user hostile behaviour. Do security ONLY updates (or better yet, work slower and bring a secure version to us in the first place please!) and let me look for new features on my own time, ok?! (this is a very bad trend in the software industry, pushing updates on the user like if the software had the same importance to the user like it is for its developers, if the life's purpose for the user was to keep it the most updated and satisfy the software packages' needs, no, not at all, for users it is a tool not the center of admiration that want to nurse and cherish. it is a bad trend but that is not an excuse to do bad as well but a reason to make it better please) Rememeber! : https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EtwnnQLUUAI9O7g?format=jpg&name=medium https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EtwnnQLUUAI9O7g?format=jpg&name=...
- rezonant 4y ago
  The primary "new features" of a new browser release are (A) security fixes and (B) support for new web standards, which websites will adopt. If you are not a security expert or a web developer, how are you supposed to judge whether these new features are something you want to upgrade for? You probably won't even know that you're missing these new features-- if you wait long enough to upgrade, you might fall victim to a long patched vulnerability or your web experience will start to break in subtle ways. This isn't a flaw of the web but a feature, we (the web developer community) have fought long and hard for the browser developers to stay up to date with the web's changing feature set so that we have less of a "feature window" to target.
  - mihaaly 4y ago
pbasista 4y ago
> The restrictions are a feature and not a bug. The point of open OS is not to force its users to use unvetted apps. It is to give them an option to do so. The argument that someone might want to use a restricted OS because they want to only use vetted apps is flawed. The reason is that the users can use an open OS in the exactly same way, if they choose to do so.
- twism 4y ago
  ain't nobody talking about unverified apps. why can't Chrome (fr fr) be in the app store?
- msh 4y ago
  I can think of one good case for not allowing sideloading of unverified apps. If iOS only allows apple approved apps a employer/school cannot force me to install a intrusive monitoring app on a iphone/ipad.
  - saurik 4y ago
    That would be cool... except that Apple in fact approves intrusive monitoring apps--hell: they even have an Enterprise program that lets companies build apps for their employees that don't require App Store approval!--and then makes it so that not only can they be installed but the device is so locked down that you can't tamper with them, via Mobile Device Management. https://developer.apple.com/programs/enterprise/ https://developer.apple.com/programs/enterprise/
    - msh 4y ago
      Apple still need to approve the organisations use of that program and provide certificates, which like in the facebook case can be revoked. There are also two different tiers of MDM in the apple enterprise program. If its a bring your own device the device cannot be locked down to not let the users remove applications. It will also sevely limit the kind of information the MDM solution cant get out of the devices. These things can only be enabled on corporation purchased devices. There is a good overview here: https://www.apple.com/hk/en/iphone/business/docs/iOS_Enterprise_Deployment_Overview_HKEN_Nov14_final.pdf https://www.apple.com/hk/en/iphone/business/docs/iOS_Enterpr... But maybe I am wrong, do you have examples of intrusive monitoring solutions that can be deployed (without exploits) on iOS?
wrldos 4y ago
It’s not that here. I use iOS because I don’t want anyone embedding several bloated half baked ancient hole ridden security nightmare browser engines in their apps which do everything possible to bypass system wide network restrictions so they can carry out whatever bad behaviour their business model thinks is acceptable. I want one system wide browser that respects the security configuration at OS level. I want this for myself and the surface area of our 500 or so staff.
- A4ET8a8uTh0 4y ago
  It is hard for me to disagree, because I understand that use case. The issue, however, appears to be that there is no 'version' that allows for it for users that accept the risks involved. It is not completely unlikely the conversation with cops. In their perfect world, everyone would sit quietly at home with hands on the table. Life is more messy than that though for obvious reasons. In other words, I understand the need to have some level of control, but some balance is necessary.
  - elzbardico 4y ago
    For those cases, there is Android. My youngest one has an android phone, and everyone else in our family has an iPhone. It is not like you are forced to buy an iPhone. Those restrictions are actually part of its market differentiator.
    - A4ET8a8uTh0 4y ago
      No. All that happy talk about differentiation and market forces only makes sense when there is an actual competition. We have an effective oligopoly with no real choices between them. If there is no real choice, as consumers we have to force companies to adopt more consumer-friendly posture ( and yes, that means sideloading and all the dangers that entails ).
      - elzbardico 4y ago
        An oligopoly is not a monopoly. You can argue that there needs to be more differentiation, not that there isn't any. Some people want to sideload, and they can have an Android. But some other people are pretty much satisfied with not being able to sideload, the uniformity it brings, and the other perceived positive side-effects they see.
phkahler 4y ago
>> The restrictions are a feature and not a bug. No. Stability is a feature. Lack of choice is restrictive.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
Lutger 4y ago
You are making one mistake here: people actually do want a different toast if its significantly better than the current one that burns their edges too many times. Chrome was able to outcompete everything else on Windows, despite Microsoft trying to prevent it. People actively installed it, just because it was better, also the so-called stupid users were able to install it. If this was possible on apple devices, who knows? Maybe it would have been the end of safari. Users just want toast, but they do prefer great toast above mediocre toast and will spend some effort on getting it.
- vnrao 4y ago
  I agree broadly with your point but the subtleties have to be kept in mind. The main difference between the Chrome/Windows and the current Apple situation is quite significant imo. Even though Microsoft tried their best to keep user share with IE like sneakily changing the defaults, installation of Chrome was always easy. Downloading and installation of Chrome was always an option and more importantly didn't require Microsoft's approval. That's not the case with iOS/iPadOS right now. A Chrome-like app couldn't be downloaded because Apple's not going to approve the app to be put on the App Store. Also, from a user perspective, Safari is a good browser which manages to keep up with both Firefox and Chrome. This combination means that users don't really have that much of an incentive to switch. To use your toast analogy, IE used to burn my toast to a sooty, carbonized block. Chrome used to do it perfectly. That's a pretty big differential in terms of performance. Now Safari isn't as bad as IE was in that era. So if it burns the edges every now and then, it's not really that big a deal simply because the user experience is more or less comparable to Chrome. Users just want toast, but the difference isn't between great and mediocre anymore like it was with Chrome and IE. It's between very good and very good-ish. This is precisely why I'm okay with Apple not allowing side-loading even though I would prefer greater choice. Apple's ecosystem isn't fundamentally as rotten as the Windows platform was in terms of performance. In fact, it's actually pretty good. Could things change? Sure. But as long as the user experience isn't shitty, I'm okay with the status quo.
  - actionfromafar 4y ago
    On Mac, I find Safari also uses less battery than either Chrome or Firefox. (I use Firefox anyway, because I like its features and I'm a zealot too, but if on battery without a charger nearby, I use Safari.)
silon42 4y ago
This is why I use Linux, where I can have a choice to run MATE for a decade while GNOME, MS/Windows (especially 11) (and Apple too) are destroying their systems (from my viewpoint at least).
jimbo9991 4y ago
I understand it, but I don't respect it.
sidewndr46 4y ago
But if you're browsing the web aren't you by definition going to "use a product that is constantly updating and adding features in that are going to be taken out shortly"? I'm always impressed when I realized a website did a redesign that basically moved buttons from the top of the screen to the bottom of the screen.
Fire-Dragon-DoL 4y ago
I despise most of the things that Apple does and yet, I am evaluating switching to apple for phone more than 10 years on android. The reason? I cannot backup my phone data, I have to rely on the single app implementation and many of them have nothing about backing up data. Add that I roughly get 2 years of security updates at most (I don't buy phones as soon as they come out), the consequence is having an expensive piece of outdated hardware. I was going to suggest that Google stops implementing and releasing any new major Android feature, only release security updates. At least this way we would start getting security patches for longer...

by lovich 4y ago

brozaman 4y ago

> I think this is some of the disconnect between users on this site who don't understand why people would possibly actively choose iOS even with the lockin. Most people do not want to use a product that is constantly updating and adding features Precisely the reason why I have an iPhone and an iPad is because they give me 5 years of updates and even more of security fixes.

yamtaddle 4y ago
Firefox feels the need to scream at me every time it updates, which is all the time—far more often than iOS, and far more often than Safari. I think that's what the GP meant. FF does the equivalent of a major iOS update several times per year, as far as the user experience of the update is concerned—iOS doesn't fill my screen with on-launch "hi! We updated!" notices unless the release is a big one and there's actually new stuff to tell me about, in which case they usually keep it short and to the point. FF opens & foregrounds a new tab to tell me about the exciting update (ugh) and sometimes also pops some call-out bubbles for Pocket or some other crap, way, way more often than any other software I use, and it's really annoying, especially for a piece of software I've been using exactly the same way since it was called Phoenix and before some of the people working on it were born, probably—none of the shit in those announcements has ever, once, been anything I needed or wanted to know about. This, despite monkeying with UI and force-foregrounding unrequested content being UI poison for people with low computer literacy. I roll my eyes and close the crap; others get confused and are significantly delayed in doing whatever they actually wanted to do with the browser, on top of feeling confused and betrayed that their browser did something different when they opened it this time.
- smolder 4y ago
  I don't remember the specifics of how to do it, but you can disable the Firefox upgrade welcome tab... My Firefox install hasn't bothered me by opening any unwanted tabs in a couple years, at least? But it still updates on a system restart or when I tell it to -- it just reloads all the previously opened tabs without any UX burden.

em-bee 4y ago

the recommendation for Firefox Nightly aside, noone is forced to accept constantly updating apps, and adding features that get removed after a short time is also an unfair characterization. i don't update Firefox more often than i want to, and even when i update, i rarely notice any changes. big changes come less than once a year. but i have the choice to update or switch browsers if i want to, and that's the point. the restrictions only remove choice. they don't add anything.

lovich 4y ago
I mean, I was referring specifically to firefox nightly in terms of adding features that can get removed. I confirmed before I posted the comment and it still a warning smack dab on their splash page. I use firefox on a daily basis personally.

loup-vaillant 4y ago

Excuse me, your conclusion doesn't seem to follow from your premises. I mean, "Please OS vendor I want something simple. That hidden `sideload` option is complicated, please lock down my machine." Like, seriously? No one's that stupid. Sure most people want a decent, clear default option, but no one want that to be the only option. At least not for themselves. Because for some reason I see many people arguing that other folks are too stupid for options and should be locked down instead. For their own… safety? convenience? And that just reeks of authoritarianism.

anders_p 4y ago
"No one's that stupid" 99.9% of people are not like you. They barely even know the difference between Windows and Google. People who got online when smartphones entered the scene have a difficult time when I try to explain what "folders" and "files" are. I do a lot of tech support for family and friends. They NEVER enter settings or preferences for their OS or their browser. They're afraid they'll "break something". The disconnect between tech literate people like you, and what they think most users want - or even care about - is mind blowing. Does anyone here remember the headache you'd get, when helping a family member, and you saw how many toolbars and viruses they'd managed to install, since you last checked their PC two months ago??? The lockdown is a feature - not a bug - in most user's minds. And I has made my life so much easier. I use Linux and side load apps. But I'm so, so, happy that none of my family members are even able to do the same.
- lovich 4y ago
  >They're afraid they'll "break something". Right? I feel like my non technical social connections have an even greater learned helplessness from interacting with any sort of open to customization technology because they've learned that everytime they touch something the tool stops working in a way they don't understand. Most people are not going to spend days to weeks, and definitely not months to years learning how to tinker with and expertly maintain their technology. I feel like technologists in this forum are acting like blacksmiths who would scoff at any of us for having purchased a hammer, rather than smelting the ore, forging the head, and carving the handle so we could have one that fit our needs perfectly.

kajecounterhack 4y ago

Is it really a feature to not be allowed to use non-webkit Chrome on my iPhone, even if it might unlock superior features? Is it a feature that Google Fi can't work optimally on iPhone thanks to their anti-competitive restrictions? Is it a feature that I have to use Siri, which is way inferior to Google Assistant, when communicating in CarPlay? Is the planned obsolescence a feature too? My 12 year old Mac laptop is dead because MacOS does not allow me to upgrade past a certain version, and the cryptography primitives do not update past that so no recent browsers support the platform. My only recourse is linux. In the future this will not be possible either because normal Linux doesn't support the new hardware, unless Asahi Linux really manages to take off. I choose iOS because the hardware is good and _some_ of the software is good. I can't stand their business practices, and they don't actually get a lot of things right. They're just doing what MSFT wanted to do with their OS & software, except that they've monopolized the hardware too and somehow that's what protects them from antitrust.

lovich 4y ago
>Is it really a feature to not be allowed to use non-webkit Chrome on my iPhone, even if it might unlock superior features? Yes it is for many people. They do not want to risk the chance of their tool not working for some nebulous chance at a better experience. The vast majority of people are not tinkerer's at heart. The rest of your questions can all be answered with "Yes", as long as the tool does as expected. We are literally all in the 1% of people just to begin with by even configuring software in the first place.
- wutbrodo 4y ago
  The example of Chrome on Windows given above seems to belie this claim. The "nebulous chance to use a better product" you refer to was apparently enough to trickle down to the non-tinkerers. Who's to say the same wouldn't be the case for eg Google Assistant vs Siri?
lawgimenez 4y ago
For the average of users they don't really mind if they're using WebKit or whatever stack underneath. My family just wants to open Safari and browse, and they don't give a shit about any of Apple's business.

zerodensity 4y ago

I'm pretty sure Apple updates it's browser just as much as Google chrome, firefox or edge is updated. Browsers in general do often change with new temporary user facing features. People choose iOS because it's a status symbol or they like the design of the interface. Not because they are afraid of updates.

mihaaly 4y ago

I am a user of browsers and though I like it the most the Firefox drives me crazy with the constant updating notices. I will never let any program auto update itself if I have a choice - sorry, I like to know if something is happening with the things I use - but the frequent bugging of the Firefox to update, update, update, update, update, update, update, update, update, update, update, update is driving me mad! Why the f*ck update?! The current version works just great!! One or two brought me noticable and interesting (thought still marginal in the overall purpose) changes throughout a perhaps 5 years window, the rest just bugging me and pushes self advertising 'what monumental new things we brought to you' pages on next start. Breaks the flow of use frequently, it is a user hostile behaviour. Do security ONLY updates (or better yet, work slower and bring a secure version to us in the first place please!) and let me look for new features on my own time, ok?! (this is a very bad trend in the software industry, pushing updates on the user like if the software had the same importance to the user like it is for its developers, if the life's purpose for the user was to keep it the most updated and satisfy the software packages' needs, no, not at all, for users it is a tool not the center of admiration that want to nurse and cherish. it is a bad trend but that is not an excuse to do bad as well but a reason to make it better please) Rememeber! : https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EtwnnQLUUAI9O7g?format=jpg&name=medium https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EtwnnQLUUAI9O7g?format=jpg&name=...

rezonant 4y ago
The primary "new features" of a new browser release are (A) security fixes and (B) support for new web standards, which websites will adopt. If you are not a security expert or a web developer, how are you supposed to judge whether these new features are something you want to upgrade for? You probably won't even know that you're missing these new features-- if you wait long enough to upgrade, you might fall victim to a long patched vulnerability or your web experience will start to break in subtle ways. This isn't a flaw of the web but a feature, we (the web developer community) have fought long and hard for the browser developers to stay up to date with the web's changing feature set so that we have less of a "feature window" to target.
- mihaaly 4y ago

pbasista 4y ago

> The restrictions are a feature and not a bug. The point of open OS is not to force its users to use unvetted apps. It is to give them an option to do so. The argument that someone might want to use a restricted OS because they want to only use vetted apps is flawed. The reason is that the users can use an open OS in the exactly same way, if they choose to do so.

twism 4y ago
ain't nobody talking about unverified apps. why can't Chrome (fr fr) be in the app store?
msh 4y ago
I can think of one good case for not allowing sideloading of unverified apps. If iOS only allows apple approved apps a employer/school cannot force me to install a intrusive monitoring app on a iphone/ipad.
- saurik 4y ago
  That would be cool... except that Apple in fact approves intrusive monitoring apps--hell: they even have an Enterprise program that lets companies build apps for their employees that don't require App Store approval!--and then makes it so that not only can they be installed but the device is so locked down that you can't tamper with them, via Mobile Device Management. https://developer.apple.com/programs/enterprise/ https://developer.apple.com/programs/enterprise/
  - msh 4y ago
    Apple still need to approve the organisations use of that program and provide certificates, which like in the facebook case can be revoked. There are also two different tiers of MDM in the apple enterprise program. If its a bring your own device the device cannot be locked down to not let the users remove applications. It will also sevely limit the kind of information the MDM solution cant get out of the devices. These things can only be enabled on corporation purchased devices. There is a good overview here: https://www.apple.com/hk/en/iphone/business/docs/iOS_Enterprise_Deployment_Overview_HKEN_Nov14_final.pdf https://www.apple.com/hk/en/iphone/business/docs/iOS_Enterpr... But maybe I am wrong, do you have examples of intrusive monitoring solutions that can be deployed (without exploits) on iOS?

wrldos 4y ago

It’s not that here. I use iOS because I don’t want anyone embedding several bloated half baked ancient hole ridden security nightmare browser engines in their apps which do everything possible to bypass system wide network restrictions so they can carry out whatever bad behaviour their business model thinks is acceptable. I want one system wide browser that respects the security configuration at OS level. I want this for myself and the surface area of our 500 or so staff.

A4ET8a8uTh0 4y ago
It is hard for me to disagree, because I understand that use case. The issue, however, appears to be that there is no 'version' that allows for it for users that accept the risks involved. It is not completely unlikely the conversation with cops. In their perfect world, everyone would sit quietly at home with hands on the table. Life is more messy than that though for obvious reasons. In other words, I understand the need to have some level of control, but some balance is necessary.
- elzbardico 4y ago
  For those cases, there is Android. My youngest one has an android phone, and everyone else in our family has an iPhone. It is not like you are forced to buy an iPhone. Those restrictions are actually part of its market differentiator.
  - A4ET8a8uTh0 4y ago
    No. All that happy talk about differentiation and market forces only makes sense when there is an actual competition. We have an effective oligopoly with no real choices between them. If there is no real choice, as consumers we have to force companies to adopt more consumer-friendly posture ( and yes, that means sideloading and all the dangers that entails ).
    - elzbardico 4y ago
      An oligopoly is not a monopoly. You can argue that there needs to be more differentiation, not that there isn't any. Some people want to sideload, and they can have an Android. But some other people are pretty much satisfied with not being able to sideload, the uniformity it brings, and the other perceived positive side-effects they see.

phkahler 4y ago

>> The restrictions are a feature and not a bug. No. Stability is a feature. Lack of choice is restrictive.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

Lutger 4y ago

You are making one mistake here: people actually do want a different toast if its significantly better than the current one that burns their edges too many times. Chrome was able to outcompete everything else on Windows, despite Microsoft trying to prevent it. People actively installed it, just because it was better, also the so-called stupid users were able to install it. If this was possible on apple devices, who knows? Maybe it would have been the end of safari. Users just want toast, but they do prefer great toast above mediocre toast and will spend some effort on getting it.

vnrao 4y ago
I agree broadly with your point but the subtleties have to be kept in mind. The main difference between the Chrome/Windows and the current Apple situation is quite significant imo. Even though Microsoft tried their best to keep user share with IE like sneakily changing the defaults, installation of Chrome was always easy. Downloading and installation of Chrome was always an option and more importantly didn't require Microsoft's approval. That's not the case with iOS/iPadOS right now. A Chrome-like app couldn't be downloaded because Apple's not going to approve the app to be put on the App Store. Also, from a user perspective, Safari is a good browser which manages to keep up with both Firefox and Chrome. This combination means that users don't really have that much of an incentive to switch. To use your toast analogy, IE used to burn my toast to a sooty, carbonized block. Chrome used to do it perfectly. That's a pretty big differential in terms of performance. Now Safari isn't as bad as IE was in that era. So if it burns the edges every now and then, it's not really that big a deal simply because the user experience is more or less comparable to Chrome. Users just want toast, but the difference isn't between great and mediocre anymore like it was with Chrome and IE. It's between very good and very good-ish. This is precisely why I'm okay with Apple not allowing side-loading even though I would prefer greater choice. Apple's ecosystem isn't fundamentally as rotten as the Windows platform was in terms of performance. In fact, it's actually pretty good. Could things change? Sure. But as long as the user experience isn't shitty, I'm okay with the status quo.
- actionfromafar 4y ago
  On Mac, I find Safari also uses less battery than either Chrome or Firefox. (I use Firefox anyway, because I like its features and I'm a zealot too, but if on battery without a charger nearby, I use Safari.)

silon42 4y ago

This is why I use Linux, where I can have a choice to run MATE for a decade while GNOME, MS/Windows (especially 11) (and Apple too) are destroying their systems (from my viewpoint at least).

jimbo9991 4y ago

I understand it, but I don't respect it.

sidewndr46 4y ago

But if you're browsing the web aren't you by definition going to "use a product that is constantly updating and adding features in that are going to be taken out shortly"? I'm always impressed when I realized a website did a redesign that basically moved buttons from the top of the screen to the bottom of the screen.

Fire-Dragon-DoL 4y ago

I despise most of the things that Apple does and yet, I am evaluating switching to apple for phone more than 10 years on android. The reason? I cannot backup my phone data, I have to rely on the single app implementation and many of them have nothing about backing up data. Add that I roughly get 2 years of security updates at most (I don't buy phones as soon as they come out), the consequence is having an expensive piece of outdated hardware. I was going to suggest that Google stops implementing and releasing any new major Android feature, only release security updates. At least this way we would start getting security patches for longer...