Phones are generally always on and always connected (network, cellular connections, bluetooth). Laptops and Desktops are generally connected to a local LAN (yes laptops have cellular connections too), but not "all" the time. And generally behind a firewall of some kind.
I don't see what this has to do with anything. I can put a 4G USB modem in my Laptop. My server is never disconnected from the internet. You can run an iPhone in WiFi only mode. The iPad which runs iPadOS (basically iOS) doesn't always have a Modem and connects via WiFi just like a Laptop and yet still has a walled garden etc
Phones have smaller batteries and historically had far less processing power compared to a desktop/laptop computer. You had to run a "lesser" OS vs a desktop as to not over utilize it's limited resources. We spent years maximizing our battery life on these devices so that it can last you as long as possible. Vs a full desktop that can draw as much power from an outlet as it needs. Or a laptop that has a larger battery, and can also draw from an outlet.
It runs almost the exact same OS that macOS does and always has done. They initially removed a lot of needless things to reduce its footprint (size on storage) and optimise it more for lower energy use and the fewer CPU cycles but that has largely changed as of 2022 because a lot of what they did for the iPhone has made its way back into improving macOS.
For instance sleeping browser tabs when not in focus, pausing the frame buffers of video players when they're not in view, adaptively adjusting the screen refresh rate to match the content. All these started on iOS and iPadOS and made their way back to the Mac as general improvements. Similarly things from the Mac (almost all of it) went to iOS.
iOS and it's devices were also designed with touch/multi-touch in mind. So the whole OS was made to maximize that type of user input. macOS was not, as it's designed with keyboard and mouse input. Yes, you can make it work with a touch screen. But, it's UI isn't well designed for it as it is for iOS/iPadOS.
This is just an interface thing, you could easily run the iPad interface on a Mac. All the other stuff is there, you can even run iPad/iPhone apps on a Mac today if you have an M1 equipped Mac.
Printing. You have AirPrint on iOS, so the printers drivers are not loading up space on your device.
macOS also has AirPrint and has since 2012. Remember these operating systems (macOS and iOS) are almost 1:1 under the hood. It's just the interface on top and some frameworks and API's that differ. Heck you can even run iOS apps on M1 equipped Macs, natively because under-the-hood it's the same thing.
Apple has limited iOS to what it needs to function "best". All desktop features are not also in iOS, as it's simply not needed. Would take up more storage space. Another thing these devices don't have as much of (space and size of the devices are smaller). Yes, they have 1TB of space on these things now, but that's "now". It was designed with the hardware of the time. Kind of like why we don't see a whole host of handheld devices running full Windows desktop OS. It would kill the battery, and require a more power hungry CPU/GPU/RAM/ and on and on. Yes, you could do it, but it would be like one of those handheld gaming devices.
You can literally get iPhones with 4x more storage than some Macs shipping today and the iPad Air and Pro now run the same SoC as their Macs (M1). This argument that these devices are fundamentally different is dead. They run the same kernel, the same base system, the same frameworks, the same API's and in some cases the same SoC. They differ in form factor but even that is debatable when you can get keyboards with trackpads for the iPads.
I also think the battery life thing is a bit of a stretch. Apple has really good power management not just on iPhone and iPad but on their Macs too. Being able to get over 12 hours on a laptop of active usage, not standby in a bag is actually incredible.
iOS limits the ways in which you can install software because allowing it via any and all means such as a desktop computer would increase the attack surface of the device/OS. Originally, iOS was not going to allow 3rd party apps. Yes that changed (clearly), but they compromised. Limit the way in which apps could be installed, and a means in which to secure those apps as made by as many trusted sources as possible. Something that is NOT possible to do on a desktop OS. It wasn't built in the same way, and we are all very used to it being more open. However, I don't enjoy all the pop-ups for security access on my macOS to allow this and accept that. This is practically non-existent on iOS. It's a trade off, and one that in many peoples view makes more sense to keep it that way because it's inherently more secure than to make it wide open like a desktop. Could we make them more similar? Sure. But at what cost? What's the trade off's? What are we truly gaining by allowing this? And more importantly it will not happen overnight.
I believe the trade offs are worth it, thus I want the ability. If you do not want it, then you don't have to install software outside of Apples app store.
How would you provide at least the same level of security as we have on iOS today. While also allowing a 3rd party store and side loading apps? Just by allowing that to be possible increases your attack surface, as these are more ways into a device than it currently has. The company for which I work for only allows internet access via 1 location. Basically one way into and out of our organization. Everything gets monitored from that point. Smaller attack surface, and easier to see all the traffic going in and out. Vs it being from each location, and having to monitor each location independently. If something happens, one place to shut down the traffic. As you simply can't evade it.
I would use the same system they have on macOS. Firstly the operating system is partitioned away from user data and is read-only. The Kernel will not allow writes to that area, period. Secondly all software would still need to be digitally signed with a developer certificate from Apple (which is how it's done on macOS) and thirdly Apple operates a revocation system so that bad software by bad developers can be disabled by voiding their certs.
It works great on macOS. And for users who don't want to get into that can of worms they can choose to never allow third party stores or sideloading apps. It would be a choice left to the user.
I think your argument that allowing more apps somehow increases attack surface is very flawed as you can already install third party software on these devices through the App Store. The origin of the software doesn't change the fact I can install a nefarious or broken app from Apples store directly. Apple has had issues with privacy invasive software on the App Store and has had to revoke developer certificates in the past for apps they themselves vetted as safe and allowed onto the store.
Same for application deployment. Users are not allowed to install whatever they want. It's a security risk, not just because they could install something even if they needed it. But, so could a bad actor. Visit a bad website, and boom your done. Open a bad email, and boom your done. This is much harder to do on an iOS device. Where clicking a link is even easer than deleting it first.
You can literally visit a website on almost every version of iOS and have the entire phone rooted because of browser engine flaws, flaws in the very browser engine that Apple forces all developers on iOS to use.
Heck you could even send a text message to an iPhone as recently as last year and root the entire device and because you cannot install any kind of diagnostic software on the phone yourself to determine if it has been compromised or not you simply have to guess. This was how Jeff Bezos was hacked by the leadership of Saudi Arabia (Mohammed bin Salman) who tried to then blackmail him with photographs he stole from his iPhone remotely.
There have also been tetherable exploits where plugging the phone into a computer via Lightning lets you exploit weaknesses in its computer handshake to root the devices or even brute force the pass key in minutes.
These devices are sadly not that secure as Apple likes to make them out to be, which I'm saddened by considering the amount of control they exert over them.
This does lead it to being a one size fits all approach which doesn't work for everyone. But, it's the approach Apple wanted as was free to try. They could have failed in this approach very easily.
Apple did this approach for monetary reasons and that's pretty much it.
metro.co.uk
