Upfront: I’m not a developer and I am not reading all details on this matter.
Having said that, though, isn’t it that every developer is crystal clear about the conditions when they decide to code for Apple’s operating systems?
And that in addition, Apple ameliorated conditions over time? I’m not talking about App Store restrictions, but money.
It all appears to me The greedy ones are exactly them. Or, to phrase it in the words from the movie “snatch”: “they see some p***y, they want a piece of the action”.
I don't like their chances. Their arguments are weak. Their demands are ridiculous. If you want to go after Apple's monopoly, you have to use the customer's right to chose what apps they can use on their iPhones. That is where Apple is the weakest. For example, why can't I mine cryptocurrency on my iPhone if I want to? Why can't I use BitTorrent if I want to? Why can't I display a list of the WiFi networks around me? Why can't I run a Windows or game emulator? Why can't I choose any kind of Apple Watch face?
My own experience with it was: I had a favorite exercise app that ran well on my iPhone. But, when they ported it to the Apple Watch they didn't actually do that. Instead they attempted to build an interface between the watch and the phone -- and like so many interfaces it was unstable and unreliable.
Apple resisted approving their update but eventually relented.
The result was: "it looks like the Apple Watch doesn't work very well to track exercise"
Apple perhaps should have worked with this developer to educate and assist him in how to properly do what what he was trying to do -- or continue to block his efforts. But, they did neither and both Apple and the developer look bad.
I am sure that many developers have had similar experiences: not doing things the right way and then finding that they wasted lots of time, money and energy in a failed project. But then that's typical of most IT projects: the failure rate is extremely high.
If Apple were to offer a settlement of a $25 iTunes gift card to each of the plaintiffs, they should settle in an instant. That's $25 more than they going to get from their lawsuit. Then they can hope that the media headline proclaiming ....... "Small developers wins big in $200B lawsuit against Apple" ...... will get them some much needed PR.
If Apple were to offer a settlement of a $25 iTunes gift card to each of the plaintiffs, they should settle in an instant. That's $999,975.00 more than they going to get from their lawsuit. …
Also, why do they say they want access to the App Store? They have that.
Apple rejected their Covid app because they weren’t working with any government agency or recognized medical organization. Apple didn’t think it was a good idea to encourage people to report their Covid data to some flaky startup that had no plan for what they were going to do with it. Because Apple is an evil monopolist. So, sue!
Apple rejecting under those conditions is reasonable especially with all the nonsense about COVID out there. What I don't understand is why the judge hadn't thrown this nonsense out. Apple has been ruled not be a monopoly and that is the case worst he court has to go by.
I don't like their chances. Their arguments are weak. Their demands are ridiculous. If you want to go after Apple's monopoly, you have to use the customer's right to chose what apps they can use on their iPhones. That is where Apple is the weakest. For example, why can't I mine cryptocurrency on my iPhone if I want to? Why can't I use BitTorrent if I want to? Why can't I display a list of the WiFi networks around me? Why can't I run a Windows or game emulator? Why can't I choose any kind of Apple Watch face?
Does the consumer have the right to have these activities supported by every company's computer-based product? How about the consumer can buy a device that allows it, like an Android phone or a Raspberry Pi?
Yes they do actually. They do have the right to do whatever they want with the things they own. Legalese buried in some fine print no one reads does not in any way mitigate your right to install any software you want on the devices you own.
I don't like their chances. Their arguments are weak. Their demands are ridiculous. If you want to go after Apple's monopoly, you have to use the customer's right to chose what apps they can use on their iPhones. That is where Apple is the weakest. For example, why can't I mine cryptocurrency on my iPhone if I want to? Why can't I use BitTorrent if I want to? Why can't I display a list of the WiFi networks around me? Why can't I run a Windows or game emulator? Why can't I choose any kind of Apple Watch face?
Does the consumer have the right to have these activities supported by every company's computer-based product? How about the consumer can buy a device that allows it, like an Android phone or a Raspberry Pi?
Yes they do actually. They do have the right to do whatever they want with the things they own. Legalese buried in some fine print no one reads does not in any way mitigate your right to install any software you want on the devices you own.
I don't like their chances. Their arguments are weak. Their demands are ridiculous. If you want to go after Apple's monopoly, you have to use the customer's right to chose what apps they can use on their iPhones. That is where Apple is the weakest. For example, why can't I mine cryptocurrency on my iPhone if I want to? Why can't I use BitTorrent if I want to? Why can't I display a list of the WiFi networks around me? Why can't I run a Windows or game emulator? Why can't I choose any kind of Apple Watch face?
Does the consumer have the right to have these activities supported by every company's computer-based product? How about the consumer can buy a device that allows it, like an Android phone or a Raspberry Pi?
Yes they do actually. They do have the right to do whatever they want with the things they own. Legalese buried in some fine print no one reads does not in any way mitigate your right to install any software you want on the devices you own.
That doesn't mean that the maker of the device has to assist in doing what you want with the things you own. What makes you think you are entitled to have the manufacturer of the things you own, assist you in doing whatever you want to the things you own, that the manufacturer don't approve of or never designed their products for?
If i want to install a Mercedes 4Matic trans drive on my Dodge mini van, does Dodge have to offer me any assistance to make the job easier or possible? Does Dodge have to change the design on their Dodge mini van so that there are mounting brackets or enough space, to install a Mercedes 4Matic drive? Or that their engine computer can be programed to work with a Mercedes 4Matic drive, if i do manage to install one. NO. It's up to me what ever it takes to modify my Dodge mini van, so that I can install a Mercedes 4Matic drive.
If you bought a Big Mac at a McDonalds and want it with a slice of apple (instead of tomato), do McDonald have to offer it on their menu or supply you the slice of apple and put it on your Big Mac for you? NO But that doesn't mean that McDonald do not allow you to have your Big Mac with a slice of apple. You just have to do it by yourself.
If you want to install Android on the iPhone that you own, do you really expect Apple to offer you any support? You think that Apple using hardware that has no Android support, is the same as Apple preventing you from doing what you want with the things you own? What makes you think you are entitled to Apple support, just because you have the right to do whatever you want, with the Apple products you own?
So go jailbreak your iDevice and do what you want with your iDevice. Or pay for a $99/yr Apple developer account and side load all the apps you want, that are not available in the App Store. Apple allows to to do this. What Apple don't have to do make changes to the iDevices they sell or their IP, to support you in any way in exercising your right to do what you want with the things you own. (And that includes not patching any security bug, that a jailbreak might be taking advantage of.)
I didn't read about Apple not allowing the engineer that modified the Lightening port to a USB-C port on his iPhone. He did it without any Apple support. Surely, if you are actually a developer, you can pay $99/yr for an Apple Developer license and side load all those apps that you keep whining about, that you can't install because Apple is not assisting you. I'm sure there are many iDevices owner that have gone down this path. Or jailbreak. You have options that will allow you to install what software you want on an iPhone.
All your whining about not being able to install any software you want on your iDevice, in no way support the idea that Apple is preventing you from doing what you want, with the things you own.
I don't like their chances. Their arguments are weak. Their demands are ridiculous. If you want to go after Apple's monopoly, you have to use the customer's right to chose what apps they can use on their iPhones. That is where Apple is the weakest. For example, why can't I mine cryptocurrency on my iPhone if I want to? Why can't I use BitTorrent if I want to? Why can't I display a list of the WiFi networks around me? Why can't I run a Windows or game emulator? Why can't I choose any kind of Apple Watch face?
Does the consumer have the right to have these activities supported by every company's computer-based product? How about the consumer can buy a device that allows it, like an Android phone or a Raspberry Pi?
Yes they do actually. They do have the right to do whatever they want with the things they own. Legalese buried in some fine print no one reads does not in any way mitigate your right to install any software you want on the devices you own.
They have the right to do whatever they can with the things that they own. They can jailbreak their phones and load whatever they want, but most choose not to do so. What they are asking for is for somebody to radically change their product to suit their own needs, but that’s not the same thing and that’s not any right I recognize. They bought a phone which does not side load, knowing it doesn’t side load. Now they complain that it doesn’t side and want others to be forced to change things to meet their ideological bent. I say “get bent.”
I don't like their chances. Their arguments are weak. Their demands are ridiculous. If you want to go after Apple's monopoly, you have to use the customer's right to chose what apps they can use on their iPhones. That is where Apple is the weakest. For example, why can't I mine cryptocurrency on my iPhone if I want to? Why can't I use BitTorrent if I want to? Why can't I display a list of the WiFi networks around me? Why can't I run a Windows or game emulator? Why can't I choose any kind of Apple Watch face?
Why can't I run BitTorrent on Xbox? Why can't I run Sony game emulators on Xbox? It's just a computer.
Etc...It's their product, that's how they built it. You can hack it if you like. But you can't demand they do what you want because you want it.
I don't like their chances. Their arguments are weak. Their demands are ridiculous. If you want to go after Apple's monopoly, you have to use the customer's right to chose what apps they can use on their iPhones. That is where Apple is the weakest. For example, why can't I mine cryptocurrency on my iPhone if I want to? Why can't I use BitTorrent if I want to? Why can't I display a list of the WiFi networks around me? Why can't I run a Windows or game emulator? Why can't I choose any kind of Apple Watch face?
Does the consumer have the right to have these activities supported by every company's computer-based product? How about the consumer can buy a device that allows it, like an Android phone or a Raspberry Pi?
Yes they do actually. They do have the right to do whatever they want with the things they own. Legalese buried in some fine print no one reads does not in any way mitigate your right to install any software you want on the devices you own.
Yyyyeaaahhh.... Ok you're coming at this with an adolescent-like perspective, ala Veruca Salt: "I want it noooow!" Sorry, ain't how the real world works, kiddo. Just because you want something, doesn't mean you have a right to it.
You're free to side load and hack your toys. You are not free to demand Apple build them the way you want them.
I don't like their chances. Their arguments are weak. Their demands are ridiculous. If you want to go after Apple's monopoly, you have to use the customer's right to chose what apps they can use on their iPhones. That is where Apple is the weakest. For example, why can't I mine cryptocurrency on my iPhone if I want to? Why can't I use BitTorrent if I want to? Why can't I display a list of the WiFi networks around me? Why can't I run a Windows or game emulator? Why can't I choose any kind of Apple Watch face?
Does the consumer have the right to have these activities supported by every company's computer-based product? How about the consumer can buy a device that allows it, like an Android phone or a Raspberry Pi?
Yes they do actually. They do have the right to do whatever they want with the things they own. Legalese buried in some fine print no one reads does not in any way mitigate your right to install any software you want on the devices you own.
Yyyyeaaahhh.... Ok you're coming at this with an adolescent-like perspective, ala Veruca Salt: "I want it noooow!" Sorry, ain't how the real world works, kiddo. Just because you want something, doesn't mean you have a right to it.
You're free to side load and hack your toys. You are not free to demand Apple build them the way you want them.
Ad hominems aside, one problem is that said perspective is precisely that endorsed by a variety of relevant legislation in various jurisdictions. Perhaps most notably, the European Union just charged Apple with violating anti-trust regulations in the music streaming apps market, and the Commisioner for Competition, Margrethe Vestager, indicated that they would also be interested in looking at anti-trust violations in the gaming app market. The charges specifically point out the exclusivity of the App Store as a factor in Apple's alleged anticompetitive practices.
Besides that, there are a variety of laws based on philosophically similar principles. Right to repair laws, for instance, popular in Europe and a number of states of the USA, take the position that it is in fact wrong for a manufacturer to decide to offer "features" that prevent users from repairing their own devices. Anti-SIM-locking laws, less common but still quite alive in countries such as Canada and China, take a similar perspective.
Another problem is that Apple, and many other technology companies, go far beyond not affirmatively making things like jailbreak available, which, as you say, they have no obligation to do, and actually actively modify their systems to make them unavailable. Jailbreaking is a prime example: Apple goes well beyond not facilitating jailbreaking to taking actions specifically to prevent it, such as locking the bootloader or issuing updates specifically targeted at jailbreaking. Before suggesting that these are merely security features that Apple has decided to provide, consider that Apple does not seem to believe that the unlocked bootloader on devices running Mac OS represents a significant security risk; at least, they have not seen fit to lock it. More than that, in fact: Apple spokespeople have consistently boasted of the security of Macs (until recently; see below).
I think even on these forums, there would be a bit of an outcry if Apple decided that Safari would be the only browser available on iOS, for instance. People would justifiably view it as a pointless measure that would only prevent them from enjoying their devices. If people do not feel the same way about the limitations that Apple actually imposes upon them, perhaps that is only because they personally do not miss the excluded features. Moreover, users would probably recognize that any claims that such an action was conceived as a security feature were unfounded, and would spot the obvious profit motive behind such decisions.
And people have been showing themselves to be more skeptical of these arguments by companies. As the judge in the Apple v. Epic case said, referring to Apple's claims that their App Store exclusivity was simply a security measure, one that made iOS users far safer than Mac OS users:
While Mr. Federighi’s Mac malware opinions may appear plausible, they appear to have emerged for the first time at trial which suggests he is stretching the truth for the sake of the argument. During deposition, he testified that he did not have any data on the relative rates of malware on notarized Mac apps compared to iOS apps. At trial, he acknowledged that Apple only has malware data collection tools for Mac, not for iOS, which raises the question of how he knows the relative rates. Prior to this lawsuit, Apple has consistently represented Mac as secure and safe from malware. Thus, the Court affords Mr. Federighi’s testimony on this topic little weight.
Many people recognize the obvious corporate profit motive at play, which leads to a conflict of interests that does anything but favor the consumer. As the right to repair debate illustrated, companies benefit from locking consumers into their ecosystems. Why would a company choose a system that does not enable user-defined trusted certificates for operating systems, for instance, over one that does, when the security gain is minimal? I should think the answer is obvious. Sometimes companies do not even conceal their willingness to actively worsen consumer experience for a slightly larger profit. For instance, when Google eliminate the functionality of the "I'm feeling lucky button,' an executive outright said that 1% of people used it, and that the company could easily increase their profits by getting rid of it.
When companies proactively add features to significantly limit the ability of consumers to use their devices in pursuit of slightly (or significantly) greater profits, people start to recognize it and push back against it.
Many people recognize the obvious corporate profit motive at play, which leads to a conflict of interests that does anything but favor the consumer.
I get your point. The profit motive is evil. So what do we need to do about it? Punish Apple? Pass new laws to prohibit profit? I'm not asking you rhetorical questions. What do you want done about it? You didn't propose any solutions. I will listen and consider any ideas you submit. I get that you are extremely unhappy with the status quo but I have no idea what you want to happen next.
Also, I don't agree that the profit motive is evil and that it "does nothing to favour the consumer."
Many people recognize the obvious corporate profit motive at play, which leads to a conflict of interests that does anything but favor the consumer.
I get your point. The profit motive is evil. So what do we need to do about it? Punish Apple? Pass new laws to prohibit profit? I'm not asking you rhetorical questions. What do you want done about it? You didn't propose any solutions. I will listen and consider any ideas you submit. I get that you are extremely unhappy with the status quo but I have no idea what you want to happen next.
Also, I don't agree that the profit motive is evil and that it "does nothing to favour the consumer."
While no solution can fix all such problems, I do have a few ideas.
First, requiring companies to allow installation of applications from outside sources, which is particularly relevant when the company actively competes in a field where it is also a supplier, such as Apple producing various types of applications for iDevices while at the same time serving as the intermediary for application purchases on those devices. It is not out of the question that this might actually happen in the near future: the European Commission on Competition seems to be leaning in the direction of fining Apple as long as its App Store exclusivity and anti-steering provisions remain in place, with a particular focus on video game and music applications. No matter how many flattering comments Tim Cook makes about the App Store aligning with the goals of the GPDR, the European Commission seems unlikely to back down, and if forced to choose between not taking a cut of any App Store purchases, dealing with increasing fines or not selling in Europe, or loosening or eliminating exclusivity, Apple seems likely to opt for the third choice.
Second, requiring that companies provide consumers with the option to purchase devices with an unlocked bootloader. This will not substantially affect customer security, since most customers will happily use the default bootloader-locked devices, and it will even enable companies to potentially mitigate or reverse any decrease in their profits by charging extra for devices with an unlocked bootloader.
These two measures, which would not only affect Apple, would substantially tilt choices back toward consumers, while (if well-implemented) not being incompatible with enhanced security.
Many people recognize the obvious corporate profit motive at play, which leads to a conflict of interests that does anything but favor the consumer.
I get your point. The profit motive is evil. So what do we need to do about it? Punish Apple? Pass new laws to prohibit profit? I'm not asking you rhetorical questions. What do you want done about it? You didn't propose any solutions. I will listen and consider any ideas you submit. I get that you are extremely unhappy with the status quo but I have no idea what you want to happen next.
Also, I don't agree that the profit motive is evil and that it "does nothing to favour the consumer."
You create an artificial black and white argument: and then argue which side it falls on.
Profit motive can be good or it can be bad -- but usually it falls somewhere in the middle.
Based on the profit motive, for over a 100 years, U.S. banks led this nation and fueled its industrial growth and gave many millions of Americans a good life.
But, in the 2000's that profit motive turned to greed and blew up that which they had created in the "Great Recession".
Likewise, Rockefeller literally lit up the nation and transformed it with his gas and oil -- all for profit.
But then, his greed/profit motive pushed him to go to far and his oil company became harmful to the country and had to be broken apart for the good of the nation.
But, usually, the profit motive falls somewhere in the middle and companies like Apple or Amazon fall somewhere in the middle where they produce more good for society than they do evil.
I don't like their chances. Their arguments are weak. Their demands are ridiculous. If you want to go after Apple's monopoly, you have to use the customer's right to chose what apps they can use on their iPhones. That is where Apple is the weakest. For example, why can't I mine cryptocurrency on my iPhone if I want to? Why can't I use BitTorrent if I want to? Why can't I display a list of the WiFi networks around me? Why can't I run a Windows or game emulator? Why can't I choose any kind of Apple Watch face?
Does the consumer have the right to have these activities supported by every company's computer-based product? How about the consumer can buy a device that allows it, like an Android phone or a Raspberry Pi?
Yes they do actually. They do have the right to do whatever they want with the things they own. Legalese buried in some fine print no one reads does not in any way mitigate your right to install any software you want on the devices you own.
I’ve said this before, others have said it, and I’ll say it again…. To you and everyone else with this idiotic “it’s my device” argument…
Yep, It’s your device, sure. And as long as you don’t use any of the firmware, OS, and software that are Apple’s IP and NOT yours then sure, you CAN do whatever you like with it.
It makes a pretty good paperweight. In exactly the right conditions it can almost work as a mirror.
I suppose if you can figure out how to install BitTorrent or mine cryptocurrency on it, without using Apple’s IP to do so, then have at it. But if you can’t, then that’s about as much Apple’s responsibility as it is GE’s responsibility that you can’t do those things with your toaster.
So far as I can see, NO ONE who is spouting this “it’s my device” argument has ever yet responded to the “sure, but it’s not your OS and other IP” response.
Many people recognize the obvious corporate profit motive at play, which leads to a conflict of interests that does anything but favor the consumer.
I get your point. The profit motive is evil. So what do we need to do about it? Punish Apple? Pass new laws to prohibit profit? I'm not asking you rhetorical questions. What do you want done about it? You didn't propose any solutions. I will listen and consider any ideas you submit. I get that you are extremely unhappy with the status quo but I have no idea what you want to happen next.
Also, I don't agree that the profit motive is evil and that it "does nothing to favour the consumer."
You create an artificial black and white argument: and then argue which side it falls on.
Profit motive can be good or it can be bad -- but usually it falls somewhere in the middle.
Based on the profit motive, for over a 100 years, U.S. banks led this nation and fueled its industrial growth and gave many millions of Americans a good life.
But, in the 2000's that profit motive turned to greed and blew up that which they had created in the "Great Recession".
Likewise, Rockefeller literally lit up the nation and transformed it with his gas and oil -- all for profit.
But then, his greed/profit motive pushed him to go to far and his oil company became harmful to the country and had to be broken apart for the good of the nation.
But, usually, the profit motive falls somewhere in the middle and companies like Apple or Amazon fall somewhere in the middle where they produce more good for society than they do evil.
How naive and ignorant. Read The Jungle and Midnight is a Place for a sampling of the real United Stated that existed over 100 years ago. A place where rotten meat was covered up with food dye, patent medicines with dangerous (and unknown) ingredient and Swedish meatballs could have claimed 'made with real Swede as that is what fell into the meet grinder last week'. An America where the head of a company (Rockefeller) could call an the state national guard and have the gun down women and children (Ludlow, CO; 1914)
The prosperity you are talking about only existed during the 1920 (and we know how that party came to a screeching halt) and the 1950s-60s which had social issues out the wazoo. Take off the rose colored glasses and really look at United Stated history.
Many people recognize the obvious corporate profit motive at play, which leads to a conflict of interests that does anything but favor the consumer.
I get your point. The profit motive is evil. So what do we need to do about it? Punish Apple? Pass new laws to prohibit profit? I'm not asking you rhetorical questions. What do you want done about it? You didn't propose any solutions. I will listen and consider any ideas you submit. I get that you are extremely unhappy with the status quo but I have no idea what you want to happen next.
Also, I don't agree that the profit motive is evil and that it "does nothing to favour the consumer."
You create an artificial black and white argument: and then argue which side it falls on.
Profit motive can be good or it can be bad -- but usually it falls somewhere in the middle.
Based on the profit motive, for over a 100 years, U.S. banks led this nation and fueled its industrial growth and gave many millions of Americans a good life.
But, in the 2000's that profit motive turned to greed and blew up that which they had created in the "Great Recession".
Likewise, Rockefeller literally lit up the nation and transformed it with his gas and oil -- all for profit.
But then, his greed/profit motive pushed him to go to far and his oil company became harmful to the country and had to be broken apart for the good of the nation.
But, usually, the profit motive falls somewhere in the middle and companies like Apple or Amazon fall somewhere in the middle where they produce more good for society than they do evil.
How naive and ignorant. ...
Are you not aware that, prior to Rockefeller's oil, after sundown the U.S. essentially shut down: businesses and industry closed and people went to bed -- or lived by candlelight?
Rockefeller (and other industrial giants) changed all of that for the better. He not only brought light to a dark nation he enabled industry to expand and produce jobs for a world of hungry, starving people.
But as you (AND I) pointed out, their power went too far and he they also created great harm to the society they benefited.
As I said, "his greed/profit motive pushed him to go to far and his oil company
became harmful to the country and had to be broken apart for the good
of the nation."
Again, the profit motive has promoted both great good as well as great harm.
To ask if Rockefeller was an "Industrial Giant" or a "Robber Baron" is a false choice. He and others like him were both.
Note that Apple rejected the App in this case for not being affiliated with a “recognized institutions such as government, hospital, insurance company, NGO, or a university” and for containing “user-generated data has not been vetted for accuracy by a reputable source.” Are these plaintiffs saying CDC, the White House Coronavirus Task Force and FEM do not fall under Apple's requirement ofrecognized institutions such as government, hospital, insurance company, NGO, or a university?! Why is this case even a thing?! Why Is Justice Chen allowing these developers to waste the court's time?!
Comments
Apple rejecting under those conditions is reasonable especially with all the nonsense about COVID out there. What I don't understand is why the judge hadn't thrown this nonsense out. Apple has been ruled not be a monopoly and that is the case worst he court has to go by.
If i want to install a Mercedes 4Matic trans drive on my Dodge mini van, does Dodge have to offer me any assistance to make the job easier or possible? Does Dodge have to change the design on their Dodge mini van so that there are mounting brackets or enough space, to install a Mercedes 4Matic drive? Or that their engine computer can be programed to work with a Mercedes 4Matic drive, if i do manage to install one. NO. It's up to me what ever it takes to modify my Dodge mini van, so that I can install a Mercedes 4Matic drive.
If you bought a Big Mac at a McDonalds and want it with a slice of apple (instead of tomato), do McDonald have to offer it on their menu or supply you the slice of apple and put it on your Big Mac for you? NO But that doesn't mean that McDonald do not allow you to have your Big Mac with a slice of apple. You just have to do it by yourself.
If you want to install Android on the iPhone that you own, do you really expect Apple to offer you any support? You think that Apple using hardware that has no Android support, is the same as Apple preventing you from doing what you want with the things you own? What makes you think you are entitled to Apple support, just because you have the right to do whatever you want, with the Apple products you own?
So go jailbreak your iDevice and do what you want with your iDevice. Or pay for a $99/yr Apple developer account and side load all the apps you want, that are not available in the App Store. Apple allows to to do this. What Apple don't have to do make changes to the iDevices they sell or their IP, to support you in any way in exercising your right to do what you want with the things you own. (And that includes not patching any security bug, that a jailbreak might be taking advantage of.)
I didn't read about Apple not allowing the engineer that modified the Lightening port to a USB-C port on his iPhone. He did it without any Apple support. Surely, if you are actually a developer, you can pay $99/yr for an Apple Developer license and side load all those apps that you keep whining about, that you can't install because Apple is not assisting you. I'm sure there are many iDevices owner that have gone down this path. Or jailbreak. You have options that will allow you to install what software you want on an iPhone.
All your whining about not being able to install any software you want on your iDevice, in no way support the idea that Apple is preventing you from doing what you want, with the things you own.
edit—ninja’d—
Etc...It's their product, that's how they built it. You can hack it if you like. But you can't demand they do what you want because you want it.
You're free to side load and hack your toys. You are not free to demand Apple build them the way you want them.
Besides that, there are a variety of laws based on philosophically similar principles. Right to repair laws, for instance, popular in Europe and a number of states of the USA, take the position that it is in fact wrong for a manufacturer to decide to offer "features" that prevent users from repairing their own devices. Anti-SIM-locking laws, less common but still quite alive in countries such as Canada and China, take a similar perspective.
Another problem is that Apple, and many other technology companies, go far beyond not affirmatively making things like jailbreak available, which, as you say, they have no obligation to do, and actually actively modify their systems to make them unavailable. Jailbreaking is a prime example: Apple goes well beyond not facilitating jailbreaking to taking actions specifically to prevent it, such as locking the bootloader or issuing updates specifically targeted at jailbreaking. Before suggesting that these are merely security features that Apple has decided to provide, consider that Apple does not seem to believe that the unlocked bootloader on devices running Mac OS represents a significant security risk; at least, they have not seen fit to lock it. More than that, in fact: Apple spokespeople have consistently boasted of the security of Macs (until recently; see below).
I think even on these forums, there would be a bit of an outcry if Apple decided that Safari would be the only browser available on iOS, for instance. People would justifiably view it as a pointless measure that would only prevent them from enjoying their devices. If people do not feel the same way about the limitations that Apple actually imposes upon them, perhaps that is only because they personally do not miss the excluded features. Moreover, users would probably recognize that any claims that such an action was conceived as a security feature were unfounded, and would spot the obvious profit motive behind such decisions.
And people have been showing themselves to be more skeptical of these arguments by companies. As the judge in the Apple v. Epic case said, referring to Apple's claims that their App Store exclusivity was simply a security measure, one that made iOS users far safer than Mac OS users:
Many people recognize the obvious corporate profit motive at play, which leads to a conflict of interests that does anything but favor the consumer. As the right to repair debate illustrated, companies benefit from locking consumers into their ecosystems. Why would a company choose a system that does not enable user-defined trusted certificates for operating systems, for instance, over one that does, when the security gain is minimal? I should think the answer is obvious. Sometimes companies do not even conceal their willingness to actively worsen consumer experience for a slightly larger profit. For instance, when Google eliminate the functionality of the "I'm feeling lucky button,' an executive outright said that 1% of people used it, and that the company could easily increase their profits by getting rid of it.
When companies proactively add features to significantly limit the ability of consumers to use their devices in pursuit of slightly (or significantly) greater profits, people start to recognize it and push back against it.
Also, I don't agree that the profit motive is evil and that it "does nothing to favour the consumer."
First, requiring companies to allow installation of applications from outside sources, which is particularly relevant when the company actively competes in a field where it is also a supplier, such as Apple producing various types of applications for iDevices while at the same time serving as the intermediary for application purchases on those devices. It is not out of the question that this might actually happen in the near future: the European Commission on Competition seems to be leaning in the direction of fining Apple as long as its App Store exclusivity and anti-steering provisions remain in place, with a particular focus on video game and music applications. No matter how many flattering comments Tim Cook makes about the App Store aligning with the goals of the GPDR, the European Commission seems unlikely to back down, and if forced to choose between not taking a cut of any App Store purchases, dealing with increasing fines or not selling in Europe, or loosening or eliminating exclusivity, Apple seems likely to opt for the third choice.
Second, requiring that companies provide consumers with the option to purchase devices with an unlocked bootloader. This will not substantially affect customer security, since most customers will happily use the default bootloader-locked devices, and it will even enable companies to potentially mitigate or reverse any decrease in their profits by charging extra for devices with an unlocked bootloader.
These two measures, which would not only affect Apple, would substantially tilt choices back toward consumers, while (if well-implemented) not being incompatible with enhanced security.
Yep, It’s your device, sure. And as long as you don’t use any of the firmware, OS, and software that are Apple’s IP and NOT yours then sure, you CAN do whatever you like with it.
So far as I can see, NO ONE who is spouting this “it’s my device” argument has ever yet responded to the “sure, but it’s not your OS and other IP” response.
The prosperity you are talking about only existed during the 1920 (and we know how that party came to a screeching halt) and the 1950s-60s which had social issues out the wazoo. Take off the rose colored glasses and really look at United Stated history.
"The new COVID-19 website, and COVID-19 app available on the App Store, were created in partnership with the CDC, the White House Coronavirus Task Force and FEMA" - Apple releases new COVID-19 app and website based on CDC guidance. For all we know the same goes for the Google contracting-tracing app.
Note that Apple rejected the App in this case for not being affiliated with a “recognized institutions such as government, hospital, insurance company, NGO, or a university” and for containing “user-generated data has not been vetted for accuracy by a reputable source.” Are these plaintiffs saying CDC, the White House Coronavirus Task Force and FEM do not fall under Apple's requirement of recognized institutions such as government, hospital, insurance company, NGO, or a university?! Why is this case even a thing?! Why Is Justice Chen allowing these developers to waste the court's time?!