4 ms·

If they have to make changes in software to allow an "unlocked" device that makes it inherently less secure.

Velorivox 1y ago
Exactly. Jailbreaking is WAI for the folks who want the “Android experience” on an iPhone. Much of this drama is merely corporations vying to “get theirs” from the ecosystem, without understanding that the extant nature of the ecosystem is why it is the most valuable platform by user spend (that is to say, they care little for the consumer). Shouting "monopoly" from the rooftops is not enough to affect real change. If I wish not to pay property taxes, my options include moving to another state, but courts do not recognize a general right to challenge tax liability on the grounds of personal preference or disagreement with taxation. Perhaps it's worth sparing a thought as to why, and who ultimately empowered that stance. Plus, this is often the “if I can’t have it no one can” line of thought, sometimes from companies engaging in anticompetitive practices themselves (like Epic Games). Edit: WAI stands for working as intended
- whstl 1y ago
  I'm all for corporations "trying to get theirs" if it benefits the rest of society. iPhones are a premium product and they don't have a natural right to 30% of transactions going through it if the participants don't want Apple to know about it. > It’s the “if I can’t have it no one can” line of thought That describes what you and _benton are advocating. "If I can't have the phone be the way I want, no one can".
  - _benton 1y ago
    That's exactly backwards. I have no desire to limit the types of phones you can purchase, and you have an enormous amount of choices in phones outside Apple that provide essentially the same functionality, and can be as open as you wish. You wish to limit my ability to access a device that I want. I want a locked down phone, and third parties wish to intervene on a transaction between me and Apple so they can illegitimately get a piece of the pie.
    - whstl 1y ago
      > You wish to limit my ability to access a device that I want. I want a locked down phone As others have repeatedly said, you can still opt to not use any other kind of app from outside the AppStore. But as I asked on another thread, as a thought experiment: What about we meet in the middle and governments force Apple to only "open" 50% of the phones, for the same price. Would that satisfy you? > third parties wish to intervene on a transaction between me and Apple so they can illegitimately get a piece of the pie. It's actually Apple that wants to intervene in transactions where I don't want them to be a part of. I don't want to pay 10 euros and give 3 to them.
    - deleted 1y ago
      [deleted]
    - ghusto 1y ago
      How about people who want a Mac (which is still "open" to the extent that it makes a difference), and therefore would also like an iPhone because of the propitiatory APIs Apple makes available solely to the iPhone? I don't particularly like my iPhone, in fact I see as a worse device in many ways to my old Android phone, but the interoperability with my Mac makes the trade-off worth it. So ironically, the only reason I want it is because of even _more_ anticompetitive practices. And yes, the day the Mac is as closed off as the iPhone, there will be zero Apple devices in this house.
      - whstl 1y ago
        Same. Considering the Mac is my work device, it's not even out of principle but purely because it would be a useless brick.
- starkrights 1y ago
  Never seen WAI before, all I can come up with is Works As Intended or Web Accessibility Initiative? Anyways- jail breaking requires being or remaining on certain iOS versions on certain specific hardware models. You can’t “just jailbreak” your apple device that you daily drive/use regularly. If you’re not on an old version on the right hardware already, you’re fucked. And waiting for a new jailbreak exploit is a (anecdotally, for me at least) nondeterministic amount of time on the order of O(years), with a significant probability that it will not be relevant for whatever device you’re waiting on.
deleted 1y ago
[deleted]

Exactly. Jailbreaking is WAI for the folks who want the “Android experience” on an iPhone. Much of this drama is merely corporations vying to “get theirs” from the ecosystem, without understanding that the extant nature of the ecosystem is why it is the most valuable platform by user spend (that is to say, they care little for the consumer). Shouting "monopoly" from the rooftops is not enough to affect real change. If I wish not to pay property taxes, my options include moving to another state, but courts do not recognize a general right to challenge tax liability on the grounds of personal preference or disagreement with taxation. Perhaps it's worth sparing a thought as to why, and who ultimately empowered that stance. Plus, this is often the “if I can’t have it no one can” line of thought, sometimes from companies engaging in anticompetitive practices themselves (like Epic Games). Edit: WAI stands for working as intended

whstl 1y ago
I'm all for corporations "trying to get theirs" if it benefits the rest of society. iPhones are a premium product and they don't have a natural right to 30% of transactions going through it if the participants don't want Apple to know about it. > It’s the “if I can’t have it no one can” line of thought That describes what you and _benton are advocating. "If I can't have the phone be the way I want, no one can".
- _benton 1y ago
  That's exactly backwards. I have no desire to limit the types of phones you can purchase, and you have an enormous amount of choices in phones outside Apple that provide essentially the same functionality, and can be as open as you wish. You wish to limit my ability to access a device that I want. I want a locked down phone, and third parties wish to intervene on a transaction between me and Apple so they can illegitimately get a piece of the pie.
  - whstl 1y ago
    > You wish to limit my ability to access a device that I want. I want a locked down phone As others have repeatedly said, you can still opt to not use any other kind of app from outside the AppStore. But as I asked on another thread, as a thought experiment: What about we meet in the middle and governments force Apple to only "open" 50% of the phones, for the same price. Would that satisfy you? > third parties wish to intervene on a transaction between me and Apple so they can illegitimately get a piece of the pie. It's actually Apple that wants to intervene in transactions where I don't want them to be a part of. I don't want to pay 10 euros and give 3 to them.
  - deleted 1y ago
    [deleted]
  - ghusto 1y ago
    How about people who want a Mac (which is still "open" to the extent that it makes a difference), and therefore would also like an iPhone because of the propitiatory APIs Apple makes available solely to the iPhone? I don't particularly like my iPhone, in fact I see as a worse device in many ways to my old Android phone, but the interoperability with my Mac makes the trade-off worth it. So ironically, the only reason I want it is because of even _more_ anticompetitive practices. And yes, the day the Mac is as closed off as the iPhone, there will be zero Apple devices in this house.
    - whstl 1y ago
      Same. Considering the Mac is my work device, it's not even out of principle but purely because it would be a useless brick.
starkrights 1y ago
Never seen WAI before, all I can come up with is Works As Intended or Web Accessibility Initiative? Anyways- jail breaking requires being or remaining on certain iOS versions on certain specific hardware models. You can’t “just jailbreak” your apple device that you daily drive/use regularly. If you’re not on an old version on the right hardware already, you’re fucked. And waiting for a new jailbreak exploit is a (anecdotally, for me at least) nondeterministic amount of time on the order of O(years), with a significant probability that it will not be relevant for whatever device you’re waiting on.

deleted 1y ago

[deleted]