6 ms·

I agree that smart phones should be general purpose computers, but that's why I use Android. iPhones are explicitly designed to not be general purpose computers

I agree that smart phones should be general purpose computers, but that's why I use Android. iPhones are explicitly designed to not be general purpose computers, and that's part of the appeal for a lot of people.

EMIRELADERO 3y ago
The only criteria that should be a controlling factor for whether something is a "general purpose computer" or not, or rather, which amount of control end-users should have over it, is the device's raw computing power. Anything else is prone to abuse and is anti-consumer.
- thfuran 3y ago
  If that law were old enough, it'd probably cover most modern toasters.
  - EMIRELADERO 3y ago
    Good.
    - thfuran 3y ago
      A toaster is obviously not a general purpose computing device. It's a device for making toast. A law regarding computing devices that treats it the same as a desktop PC probably won't handle either ideally.
- lolinder 3y ago
  My wife doesn't want a general purpose computer in her pocket. She wants to be able to download and install an app with near-complete confidence that it won't steal her credit card. That desire is at odds with having a general purpose computing device. This is why she (and millions like her) chose an iPhone. Are you seriously saying that Apple providing that as an option is anti-consumer?
  - akaralar 3y ago
    > Are you seriously saying that Apple providing that as an option is anti-consumer? I think Apple not providing the other option is anti-consumer. It can be as on the macs, where you have SIP and you can disable it if you so wish, although it takes some effort and is not straightforward. The phone can have 2 modes, a safe mode and an unsafe mode, and it's up to people to choose which mode they want to operate in. So your wife still has the option to have the non-general purpose computer in her pocket, and others can have it as a general purpose computer.
    - lolinder 3y ago
      Why should Apple be obligated to serve two product categories? I have a phone that serves the role of general purpose computer just fine. I run mostly open source apps and even have a real terminal. It's just not an Apple phone.
  - EMIRELADERO 3y ago
    > This is why she (and millions like her) chose an iPhone. Are you seriously saying that Apple providing that as an option is anti-consumer? There has to be a way for the physical owner to have full control over the device. It's not even a matter of inmediate benefit, but rather good consumer/human rights policy. Much like the right to privacy, data control and GDPR, it didn't matter that many services relied on tracking-based ad revenue to survive, the user's right to privacy superseded that, and so the law was passed. This is somewhat the same principle. The general "digital right" to control, or to at least have the same degree of control as the manufacturer (for cases where not even they can control it fully after it comes out of the factory), is becoming an increasingly important thing with every passing day. It's no longer only about taste, but about public policy.
    - lolinder 3y ago
      I'm not talking about taste, I'm talking about needs. A huge portion of the population wants to outsource their electronic security to someone else. They want a closed, but secure, ecosystem. You're arguing that they don't know what's good for them, but I'm not seeing how that's a more pro-consumer stance than Apple's willingness to provide what customers want.

EMIRELADERO 3y ago

The only criteria that should be a controlling factor for whether something is a "general purpose computer" or not, or rather, which amount of control end-users should have over it, is the device's raw computing power. Anything else is prone to abuse and is anti-consumer.

thfuran 3y ago
If that law were old enough, it'd probably cover most modern toasters.
- EMIRELADERO 3y ago
  Good.
  - thfuran 3y ago
    A toaster is obviously not a general purpose computing device. It's a device for making toast. A law regarding computing devices that treats it the same as a desktop PC probably won't handle either ideally.
lolinder 3y ago
My wife doesn't want a general purpose computer in her pocket. She wants to be able to download and install an app with near-complete confidence that it won't steal her credit card. That desire is at odds with having a general purpose computing device. This is why she (and millions like her) chose an iPhone. Are you seriously saying that Apple providing that as an option is anti-consumer?
- akaralar 3y ago
  > Are you seriously saying that Apple providing that as an option is anti-consumer? I think Apple not providing the other option is anti-consumer. It can be as on the macs, where you have SIP and you can disable it if you so wish, although it takes some effort and is not straightforward. The phone can have 2 modes, a safe mode and an unsafe mode, and it's up to people to choose which mode they want to operate in. So your wife still has the option to have the non-general purpose computer in her pocket, and others can have it as a general purpose computer.
  - lolinder 3y ago
    Why should Apple be obligated to serve two product categories? I have a phone that serves the role of general purpose computer just fine. I run mostly open source apps and even have a real terminal. It's just not an Apple phone.
- EMIRELADERO 3y ago
  > This is why she (and millions like her) chose an iPhone. Are you seriously saying that Apple providing that as an option is anti-consumer? There has to be a way for the physical owner to have full control over the device. It's not even a matter of inmediate benefit, but rather good consumer/human rights policy. Much like the right to privacy, data control and GDPR, it didn't matter that many services relied on tracking-based ad revenue to survive, the user's right to privacy superseded that, and so the law was passed. This is somewhat the same principle. The general "digital right" to control, or to at least have the same degree of control as the manufacturer (for cases where not even they can control it fully after it comes out of the factory), is becoming an increasingly important thing with every passing day. It's no longer only about taste, but about public policy.
  - lolinder 3y ago
    I'm not talking about taste, I'm talking about needs. A huge portion of the population wants to outsource their electronic security to someone else. They want a closed, but secure, ecosystem. You're arguing that they don't know what's good for them, but I'm not seeing how that's a more pro-consumer stance than Apple's willingness to provide what customers want.