Whether or not it’s a risk is irrelevant. People should be given the choice, and let them pick what they want. If they end up picking a less secure option, and something bad happens as a result, that’s on them.
I completely agree, as long as the mechanisms used to allow for risky behavior do not compromise the integrity of the product for those of us who do not want to be exposed to new risks.
The classic example of a mechanism that exposes both those who want something, often for very logical reasons, and those who don’t want it are security back-doors. There are many advocates for Apple building a back-door that would allow law enforcement to bypass the security and/or encryption mechanisms built into Apple’s products. Nearly everyone wants bad people doing bad things to be caught, captured, and thrown in jail. A back-door would make it much easier to achieve this goal. However, back-doors, no matter how secretive, put a mechanism in place that can be discovered and exploited for unintended consequences. The safest way to prevent the unintended consequences may be to not put the mechanism in place in the products or systems.
As long as Apple can guarantee that there will be no unintended consequences for its customers outside of the EU I have zero concerns about the changes in question.
It’s important to recognize that Apple and Steve Jobs in particular intended the iPhone to be a closed system. He only reluctantly agreed to open up the iPhone and iOS to third party applications after a lot of internal debate and with a series of conditions put in place.
The App Store and 3rd-party app were always intended. That's why the UI was designed the way it was with multiple pages and room for additional apps on the home screen. The reason why it didn't launch with the App Store is because it took time to build right. Remember that Jobs announced it in October 2007, a little over 3 months after the Phone went on sale and during their Fall event right before the Christmas season. This wasn't some hobbled together solution where they never considered the need for 3rd-party apps.
Hmm, not according to what I've read in here and in Walter Isaacson's book.:
I think it's also clear to differentiate between a "closed" system and an "extensible" system, which Designr articulates in his comment. These are not mutually exclusive. It seems like it was always a goal for the iPhone to be extensible through third party contributions and apps, but the mechanism for achieving this objective changed over time. One recognized approach to building reliable software is captured within a group of design principles captured under the acronym "SOLID." Here's an overview:
The "O" in SOLID, the Open-Close principle, is all about providing extensibility through various forms of abstraction in order to achieve a degree of separation and reduce the coupling between the closed software provided by the underlying system (iOS) and those who wish to extend its capabilities without altering the integrity of the underlying system. It's important to recognize that the mechanisms and granularity of abstraction have changed over time, so what was once done at abstraction mechanisms provided at a language level using languages like C++ and Java have moved up to higher levels of abstraction using libraries, frameworks, and subsystems accessed through application programming interfaces (APIs) and various types of messaging for near model, far model, synchronous, asynchronous, stateful, stateless, etc.
However, the common goal of the open-close principle has remained the same: to protect the closed part of the system, provide secure and robust ways to extend the closed part of the system, and to always protect the closed part of the system from being adversely affected by the behavior of system extensions, e.g., prevent a crashed third party app from crashing iOS. As Designr pointed out, progressive web apps were probably a more secure and less coupled mechanism for extensibility compared to what Apple eventually provided through library based APIs.
Apple settled on an extensibility model that let extensions/apps have a tighter and more highly coupled interaction with the closed iOS system. To mitigate the risk they "protected" the closed part of the system by enforcing rules, code signing, and subjecting extensions to review by Apple's own people. At the same time the natural separation of core system level functionality from application level functionality provided by the iOS architecture, i.e., kernel level versus user level (or application level) is still in place. It's not like Apple gave away the keys to the kingdom, they simply moved to a tighter and more highly coupled extensibility model from what a web based model would have provided. In its purest sense web apps would not even have access to the file system, so something more, i.e., progressive web apps, were necessary.
Again, everything is fine as long as the compromises put in place to placate the EU do not impact the protection mechanisms that Apple has put in place. I seriously doubt that Apple would allow anything that would destabilize iOS. But what happens inside the third party silos that the EU has forced Apple to allow is anyone's guess. They probably won't be able to access anything that Apple deems to be under its own security and privacy umbrella, or crash iOS, but what happens with apps provided outside of Apple's app store is anyones's guess. Just don't call Apple if those apps behave in unexpected or harmful ways. You asked for it.
It can swing both ways but the user must decide, not Apple (or not only Apple at least).
The user DOES decide at the point of purchase. Don't like the walled garden? Great! Don't buy into it! There's an entire world of Android phones, with far more variety than Apple offers, from which you can choose. People who buy Apple products CHOOSE the walled garden. And what you're saying is that they have no right to make that choice.
They do not do that, simply because the vast majority of users have no idea of the restrictions Apple imposes.
For which ZERO data exists to support this. ZERO. But hey, I'll humor your stupidity, so let's play this out: wouldn't the "vast majority of users who had no idea" be shocked and furious when they found out that they were "walled in" by Apple with no way to get out? Wouldn't they reject ever making an iPhone purchase again? Wouldn't they be spreading the word to all their clueless friends who also had "no idea" and were about to make an iPhone purchase? And wouldn't all those friends be rushing to Android to avoid the prison into which Apple was duping them into stumbling unaware? Yeah, except absolutely NONE of that is happening. Apple, with its "too expensive" prices and walled garden into which it is duping the world's population continues to earn around 85% of ALL global smartphone profits, leaving every other handset maker scrambling to grasp whatever tiny share of the crumbs that are left. And, amazingly according to you, this is all based on people not realizing what they're buying... for the past 16 YEARS and counting. Wow, word of Apple's nefarious deeds must travel VERY slowly. But you just keep screaming into the void.
It can swing both ways but the user must decide, not Apple (or not only Apple at least).
The user DOES decide at the point of purchase. Don't like the walled garden? Great! Don't buy into it! There's an entire world of Android phones, with far more variety than Apple offers, from which you can choose. People who buy Apple products CHOOSE the walled garden. And what you're saying is that they have no right to make that choice.
They do not do that, simply because the vast majority of users have no idea of the restrictions Apple imposes.
For which ZERO data exists to support this. ZERO. But hey, I'll humor your stupidity, so let's play this out: wouldn't the "vast majority of users who had no idea" be shocked and furious when they found out that they were "walled in" by Apple with no way to get out? Wouldn't they reject ever making an iPhone purchase again? Wouldn't they be spreading the word to all their clueless friends who also had "no idea" and were about to make an iPhone purchase? And wouldn't all those friends be rushing to Android to avoid the prison into which Apple was duping them into stumbling unaware? Yeah, except absolutely NONE of that is happening. Apple, with its "too expensive" prices and walled garden into which it is duping the world's population continues to earn around 85% of ALL global smartphone profits, leaving every other handset maker scrambling to grasp whatever tiny share of the crumbs that are left. And, amazingly according to you, this is all based on people not realizing what they're buying... for the past 16 YEARS and counting. Wow, word of Apple's nefarious deeds must travel VERY slowly. But you just keep screaming into the void.
He pulls that argument out every couple of months. It is, of course, a bullshit argument.
It can swing both ways but the user must decide, not Apple (or not only Apple at least).
The user DOES decide at the point of purchase. Don't like the walled garden? Great! Don't buy into it! There's an entire world of Android phones, with far more variety than Apple offers, from which you can choose. People who buy Apple products CHOOSE the walled garden. And what you're saying is that they have no right to make that choice.
They do not do that, simply because the vast majority of users have no idea of the restrictions Apple imposes.
For which ZERO data exists to support this. ZERO. But hey, I'll humor your stupidity, so let's play this out: wouldn't the "vast majority of users who had no idea" be shocked and furious when they found out that they were "walled in" by Apple with no way to get out? Wouldn't they reject ever making an iPhone purchase again? Wouldn't they be spreading the word to all their clueless friends who also had "no idea" and were about to make an iPhone purchase? And wouldn't all those friends be rushing to Android to avoid the prison into which Apple was duping them into stumbling unaware? Yeah, except absolutely NONE of that is happening. Apple, with its "too expensive" prices and walled garden into which it is duping the world's population continues to earn around 85% of ALL global smartphone profits, leaving every other handset maker scrambling to grasp whatever tiny share of the crumbs that are left. And, amazingly according to you, this is all based on people not realizing what they're buying... for the past 16 YEARS and counting. Wow, word of Apple's nefarious deeds must travel VERY slowly. But you just keep screaming into the void.
By the same token ZERO data exists to support they are aware of the situation.
Anyway, data does exist but it's only my data. Is that relevant to what I'm sayng though?
I've said I've asked people and none of them are aware of the extent of the restrictions but you are either wilfully ignoring what I say or haven't understood it because my point was done thing different.
Re-read what I wrote and in response to what, and maybe you'll understand it.
And I will repeat this. If Apple users of iPhones were aware of the extent of the limitations imposed on them they would not be happy at all.
I've even said it would be a great idea to actually conduct a survey to obtain that data.
In the meantime, ask your own questions to the users you know and report back.
That's a pretty simple task.
Ask them if they are aware that Apple denies access to NFC for payments. That alternative wallets are restricted. That only Apple decides for users what apps are sold through the app store. That only the Apple store is allowed. That only WebKit can be used. That Apple has had anti-steering policies in place.
That's just for starters.
Then we can move onto the repair side of things and how Apple rules that roost.
It’s important to recognize that Apple and Steve Jobs in particular intended the iPhone to be a closed system. He only reluctantly agreed to open up the iPhone and iOS to third party applications after a lot of internal debate and with a series of conditions put in place.
The App Store and 3rd-party app were always intended. That's why the UI was designed the way it was with multiple pages and room for additional apps on the home screen. The reason why it didn't launch with the App Store is because it took time to build right. Remember that Jobs announced it in October 2007, a little over 3 months after the Phone went on sale and during their Fall event right before the Christmas season. This wasn't some hobbled together solution where they never considered the need for 3rd-party apps.
Hmm, not according to what I've read in here and in Walter Isaacson's book.:
I think it's also clear to differentiate between a "closed" system and an "extensible" system, which Designr articulates in his comment. These are not mutually exclusive. It seems like it was always a goal for the iPhone to be extensible through third party contributions and apps, but the mechanism for achieving this objective changed over time. One recognized approach to building reliable software is captured within a group of design principles captured under the acronym "SOLID." Here's an overview:
The "O" in SOLID, the Open-Close principle, is all about providing extensibility through various forms of abstraction in order to achieve a degree of separation and reduce the coupling between the closed software provided by the underlying system (iOS) and those who wish to extend its capabilities without altering the integrity of the underlying system. It's important to recognize that the mechanisms and granularity of abstraction have changed over time, so what was once done at abstraction mechanisms provided at a language level using languages like C++ and Java have moved up to higher levels of abstraction using libraries, frameworks, and subsystems accessed through application programming interfaces (APIs) and various types of messaging for near model, far model, synchronous, asynchronous, stateful, stateless, etc.
However, the common goal of the open-close principle has remained the same: to protect the closed part of the system, provide secure and robust ways to extend the closed part of the system, and to always protect the closed part of the system from being adversely affected by the behavior of system extensions, e.g., prevent a crashed third party app from crashing iOS. As Designr pointed out, progressive web apps were probably a more secure and less coupled mechanism for extensibility compared to what Apple eventually provided through library based APIs.
Apple settled on an extensibility model that let extensions/apps have a tighter and more highly coupled interaction with the closed iOS system. To mitigate the risk they "protected" the closed part of the system by enforcing rules, code signing, and subjecting extensions to review by Apple's own people. At the same time the natural separation of core system level functionality from application level functionality provided by the iOS architecture, i.e., kernel level versus user level (or application level) is still in place. It's not like Apple gave away the keys to the kingdom, they simply moved to a tighter and more highly coupled extensibility model from what a web based model would have provided. In its purest sense web apps would not even have access to the file system, so something more, i.e., progressive web apps, were necessary.
Again, everything is fine as long as the compromises put in place to placate the EU do not impact the protection mechanisms that Apple has put in place. I seriously doubt that Apple would allow anything that would destabilize iOS. But what happens inside the third party silos that the EU has forced Apple to allow is anyone's guess. They probably won't be able to access anything that Apple deems to be under its own security and privacy umbrella, or crash iOS, but what happens with apps provided outside of Apple's app store is anyones's guess. Just don't call Apple if those apps behave in unexpected or harmful ways. You asked for it.
"Others in the know disagree with Isaacson's story and contend third-party apps were always on the iPhone roadmap; Jobs and company were simply not comfortable with releasing an SDK at launch."
It's obvious to me that the iPhone's UI and layout and the SDK being announced just 3 months after the iPhone was released make it clear that this was always the roadmap. There are a lot of questionable elements to Isaacon's biographies. Apple's higher ups don't have anything good to say about his biography. Cook is reported as saying, "Mr. Isaacson’s best seller did a tremendous disservice to the Apple chief [Steve Jobs]."
A study of history—both in the recent tech world and in the longer scope of industry and technology—will show that closed (AKA "walled garden") systems eventually succumb to open ecosystems.
This is provably untrue, at least when it comes to app stores.
Android/Google has always allowed alternate app stores, but unlike Apple has little to no control over the non-Google stores.
The result is that better than 80 percent of Android users outside of China get their apps mostly or exclusively from the Google Play store, and most of the rest get their apps from the official store of the company that made their major-label phone (ie, Samsung, Nokia, et al), China being a notable exception.
It can swing both ways but the user must decide, not Apple (or not only Apple at least).
The user DOES decide at the point of purchase. Don't like the walled garden? Great! Don't buy into it! There's an entire world of Android phones, with far more variety than Apple offers, from which you can choose. People who buy Apple products CHOOSE the walled garden. And what you're saying is that they have no right to make that choice.
They do not do that, simply because the vast majority of users have no idea of the restrictions Apple imposes.
For which ZERO data exists to support this. ZERO. But hey, I'll humor your stupidity, so let's play this out: wouldn't the "vast majority of users who had no idea" be shocked and furious when they found out that they were "walled in" by Apple with no way to get out? Wouldn't they reject ever making an iPhone purchase again? Wouldn't they be spreading the word to all their clueless friends who also had "no idea" and were about to make an iPhone purchase? And wouldn't all those friends be rushing to Android to avoid the prison into which Apple was duping them into stumbling unaware? Yeah, except absolutely NONE of that is happening. Apple, with its "too expensive" prices and walled garden into which it is duping the world's population continues to earn around 85% of ALL global smartphone profits, leaving every other handset maker scrambling to grasp whatever tiny share of the crumbs that are left. And, amazingly according to you, this is all based on people not realizing what they're buying... for the past 16 YEARS and counting. Wow, word of Apple's nefarious deeds must travel VERY slowly. But you just keep screaming into the void.
By the same token ZERO data exists to support they are aware of the situation.
Actually, clear data does exist. Buyer loyalty to the iPhone is the highest in the industry by far. So where's the backlash to discovering they've been imprisoned? Or are you going to take your ridiculous argument even further and claim that not only are the vast majority of buyers "unaware" that they're buying into a walled garden, they remain unaware even years after using an iPhone and just happily repeat their purchase? For Apple customers, the walled garden is a primary reason to buy into the Apple ecosystem, not a reason to avoid it. The sales numbers and Apple brand loyalty back it up. You know who hates the walled garden? Non-Apple customers and competitors.
It can swing both ways but the user must decide, not Apple (or not only Apple at least).
The user DOES decide at the point of purchase. Don't like the walled garden? Great! Don't buy into it! There's an entire world of Android phones, with far more variety than Apple offers, from which you can choose. People who buy Apple products CHOOSE the walled garden. And what you're saying is that they have no right to make that choice.
They do not do that, simply because the vast majority of users have no idea of the restrictions Apple imposes.
For which ZERO data exists to support this. ZERO. But hey, I'll humor your stupidity, so let's play this out: wouldn't the "vast majority of users who had no idea" be shocked and furious when they found out that they were "walled in" by Apple with no way to get out? Wouldn't they reject ever making an iPhone purchase again? Wouldn't they be spreading the word to all their clueless friends who also had "no idea" and were about to make an iPhone purchase? And wouldn't all those friends be rushing to Android to avoid the prison into which Apple was duping them into stumbling unaware? Yeah, except absolutely NONE of that is happening. Apple, with its "too expensive" prices and walled garden into which it is duping the world's population continues to earn around 85% of ALL global smartphone profits, leaving every other handset maker scrambling to grasp whatever tiny share of the crumbs that are left. And, amazingly according to you, this is all based on people not realizing what they're buying... for the past 16 YEARS and counting. Wow, word of Apple's nefarious deeds must travel VERY slowly. But you just keep screaming into the void.
By the same token ZERO data exists to support they are aware of the situation.
Actually, clear data does exist. Buyer loyalty to the iPhone is the highest in the industry by far. So where's the backlash to discovering they've been imprisoned? Or are you going to take your ridiculous argument even further and claim that not only are the vast majority of buyers "unaware" that they're buying into a walled garden, they remain unaware even years after using an iPhone and just happily repeat their purchase? For Apple customers, the walled garden is a primary reason to buy into the Apple ecosystem, not a reason to avoid it. The sales numbers and Apple brand loyalty back it up. You know who hates the walled garden? Non-Apple customers and competitors.
Loyalty or lock-in?
Or somewhere in between?
Let's not forget that, internally, Apple has used that term.
Loyalty can be for numerous reasons and being informed of certain restrictions imposed by the company could change that in short order.
The idea was that if requiring users to expressly sign off on the restrictions could protect Apple’s current practices in the EU why not do just that?
So the same thing Apple has been saying all along.
Nothing new here.
What would be new is admitting that this is primarily about money.
The sad thing is that this is one area where Apple is being remarkably short-sighted. A study of history—both in the recent tech world and in the longer scope of industry and technology—will show that closed (AKA "walled garden") systems eventually succumb to open ecosystems. Apple has a chance to get ahead of that and actually ride that if they were a bit more enlightened and less control-obsessed. Oh well.
can you provide some examples of walled gardens that failed to open ecosystems?
Exactly, what is this "study of history" that shows "Apple is being remarkably short-sighted?" Let's do a study of history right here: Since iOS and the App Store got started around 2008, Apple's detractors have been saying over-and-over, mantra-like, that "open beats closed," and "open systems always win." Meanwhile, for the past sixteen years, iOS, the App Store, and Apple in general have just been doing better and better and better, carrying Apple to a $3 trillion valuation and beyond.
Comments
https://appleinsider.com/articles/18/07/10/the-revolution-steve-jobs-resisted-apples-app-store-marks-10-years-of-third-party-innovation
I think it's also clear to differentiate between a "closed" system and an "extensible" system, which Designr articulates in his comment. These are not mutually exclusive. It seems like it was always a goal for the iPhone to be extensible through third party contributions and apps, but the mechanism for achieving this objective changed over time. One recognized approach to building reliable software is captured within a group of design principles captured under the acronym "SOLID." Here's an overview:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SOLID#External_links
The "O" in SOLID, the Open-Close principle, is all about providing extensibility through various forms of abstraction in order to achieve a degree of separation and reduce the coupling between the closed software provided by the underlying system (iOS) and those who wish to extend its capabilities without altering the integrity of the underlying system. It's important to recognize that the mechanisms and granularity of abstraction have changed over time, so what was once done at abstraction mechanisms provided at a language level using languages like C++ and Java have moved up to higher levels of abstraction using libraries, frameworks, and subsystems accessed through application programming interfaces (APIs) and various types of messaging for near model, far model, synchronous, asynchronous, stateful, stateless, etc.
However, the common goal of the open-close principle has remained the same: to protect the closed part of the system, provide secure and robust ways to extend the closed part of the system, and to always protect the closed part of the system from being adversely affected by the behavior of system extensions, e.g., prevent a crashed third party app from crashing iOS. As Designr pointed out, progressive web apps were probably a more secure and less coupled mechanism for extensibility compared to what Apple eventually provided through library based APIs.
Apple settled on an extensibility model that let extensions/apps have a tighter and more highly coupled interaction with the closed iOS system. To mitigate the risk they "protected" the closed part of the system by enforcing rules, code signing, and subjecting extensions to review by Apple's own people. At the same time the natural separation of core system level functionality from application level functionality provided by the iOS architecture, i.e., kernel level versus user level (or application level) is still in place. It's not like Apple gave away the keys to the kingdom, they simply moved to a tighter and more highly coupled extensibility model from what a web based model would have provided. In its purest sense web apps would not even have access to the file system, so something more, i.e., progressive web apps, were necessary.
Again, everything is fine as long as the compromises put in place to placate the EU do not impact the protection mechanisms that Apple has put in place. I seriously doubt that Apple would allow anything that would destabilize iOS. But what happens inside the third party silos that the EU has forced Apple to allow is anyone's guess. They probably won't be able to access anything that Apple deems to be under its own security and privacy umbrella, or crash iOS, but what happens with apps provided outside of Apple's app store is anyones's guess. Just don't call Apple if those apps behave in unexpected or harmful ways. You asked for it.
Anyway, data does exist but it's only my data. Is that relevant to what I'm sayng though?
I've said I've asked people and none of them are aware of the extent of the restrictions but you are either wilfully ignoring what I say or haven't understood it because my point was done thing different.
Re-read what I wrote and in response to what, and maybe you'll understand it.
And I will repeat this. If Apple users of iPhones were aware of the extent of the limitations imposed on them they would not be happy at all.
I've even said it would be a great idea to actually conduct a survey to obtain that data.
In the meantime, ask your own questions to the users you know and report back.
That's a pretty simple task.
Ask them if they are aware that Apple denies access to NFC for payments. That alternative wallets are restricted. That only Apple decides for users what apps are sold through the app store. That only the Apple store is allowed. That only WebKit can be used. That Apple has had anti-steering policies in place.
That's just for starters.
Then we can move onto the repair side of things and how Apple rules that roost.
https://appleinsider.com/articles/18/07/10/the-revolution-steve-jobs-resisted-apples-app-store-marks-10-years-of-third-party-innovation
It's obvious to me that the iPhone's UI and layout and the SDK being announced just 3 months after the iPhone was released make it clear that this was always the roadmap. There are a lot of questionable elements to Isaacon's biographies. Apple's higher ups don't have anything good to say about his biography. Cook is reported as saying, "Mr. Isaacson’s best seller did a tremendous disservice to the Apple chief [Steve Jobs]."
Or somewhere in between?
Let's not forget that, internally, Apple has used that term.
Loyalty can be for numerous reasons and being informed of certain restrictions imposed by the company could change that in short order.
The idea was that if requiring users to expressly sign off on the restrictions could protect Apple’s current practices in the EU why not do just that?
Apple is supposed to be pro transparency.