Proposed Law Against Apple's 'Walled Garden' Software Approach Sparks Fears of iPhone Ban in Italy

[sdf]

The only way to download apps outside of Apple's parameters is by jailbreaking, which is in violation of Apple's end-user agreement.

Or a free developer account.

 

[BeforeTheMeds]

Amazing. It's amazing how many could not live with others being able to install apps from places other than itunes. It's not enough that they would not have to do it but they whine about the possibility of someone else being able to do it. Why would anyone not planning on doing it even care? Pretty hateful people, seriously. I don't want it so I don't want anyone else to have it.

I do not care either way. It's not about letting malware into the itunes store, it's about allowing people access to other app stores. Anyone that would continue to use only apple's store would have no reason to whine.

 

[macsrcool1234]

don't want iPhones to end up like Android and have to deal with anti-virus apps and risk getting malware.

Uh....then....don't leave the garden?

It's really not that complicated.
[doublepost=1498354473][/doublepost]

I’ve noticed over the past


As an IT manager, this would be a complete nightmare. The last thing I want is for people to bring their iOS devices to me and bitch about poor performance or worse a compromised device. Apple would never make such a compromise.

Apple is slowly opening up their ecosystem in a way that makes sense to Apple. The next step would be to allow users to assign default apps in iOS. If a user really needs to download a program outside of the App Store, they should learn how to sideload apps.

You must not be a very competent 'IT manager.' You should be using managed devices.

 

[theLedger]

Uh....then....don't leave the garden?

It's really not that complicated.
[doublepost=1498354473][/doublepost]

You must not be a very competent 'IT manager.' You should be using managed devices.

That's a very narrow view in today's BYOD world. If a company allows people to use their own device (as mine does), there are limits as to how much you can control the device.

I prefer the walled garden approach - if someone wants a non-walled garden, there is always Android. With fragmentation in the Android world, it is getting increasingly difficult to secure the devices when anyone can accidentally download and install a key logger.

Security is extremely hard in today's world even with a walled garden. Once these politicians realize what they are asking for, they will likely back off just like Europe did with encryption and back doors.

 

[macsrcool1234]

That's a very narrow view in today's BYOD world. If a company allows people to use their own device (as mine does), there are limits as to how much you can control the device.

Than that's the companies problem. It's their risk to take.

if someone wants a non-walled garden, there is always Android.

If this is your only rebuttal, you've already lost the argument.

 

[coolspot18]

And here we have another example of politicians not understanding how anything works.

Why not? OSX is locked down but has an option to download unsigned 3rd party software if you authorize it.

That's a very narrow view in today's BYOD world. If a company allows people to use their own device (as mine does), there are limits as to how much you can control the device.

Security is extremely hard in today's world even with a walled garden. Once these politicians realize what they are asking for, they will likely back off just like Europe did with encryption and back doors.

No, they can adopt the Android model - by default it's a walled garden, but root access is available as a separate download or an option to enable on the phone.

As for BYOD, your work can make stipulations about the device - just like what they stipulate you wear to work, etc.

We know it can be done, but that doesn't mean it should. It's one of the main things that separate Android from iOS.

Works this way in OSX too.

 

[AZ63]

I think you mean here we have an example of someone (i.e. you) that thinks consumers shouldn't have rights at all and that companies should be allowed to do anything they want in society, especially ripping people off by purposely thwarting direct competition by monopolizing 100% of all software made for a given hardware platform.

I've been complaining about this for YEARS. It's violates US Antitrust Laws and the only reason Apple gets away with it is that the self-serving bastards in control of the government are on corporate sides (why mergers are always approved, utilities get any raise in basic price they ask for with no input from consumers what-so-ever and 20+ Million are about to lose their health care because POLITICIANS ARE BOUGHT AND PAID FOR SCUMBAGS that represent the "rights" of big business and NOT the rights of the people that elected them. Sadly, some people (like you) appear to support consumers getting ripped off and screwed over and keep helping this cycle continue by preaching that companies should be allowed to do anything and everything in society with no restraints.

The Italians obviously DO GET IT and are are damn well doing something about it, by god. Good for them. Good for the European Union as a whole to demand rights for the citizens/people and not just for the top 1% money grubbing leaches (like Tim Cook). There's a society that isn't 100% bought and paid for (unlike most of the world), let alone how we in the US are letting Russia make our decisions for us these days. Maybe one day we'll take our country back by electing people that aren't just for the ultra-rich and put consumer rights front and forward as a priority once again. No robots that pay no taxes. No more tax dodger fat cats. No more job killing trade deals. The Law should not be only on the side of those that can afford millions to pay lawyers at $600 an hour. Justice should not mean you're rich enough to get away with it. No, clearly someone doesn't get it at all and that someone isn't Italy.

Great passion, and while I lean your way on some of the ideas you proffer others seem to contradict them.
How could anyone disagree with the idea of monopolies being a bad thing for a free society? Are too many mergers being approved? I would agree that the government approves far too many as well. Most, I think, would also agree with your words about politicians' character. Sadly, most also seem to think it is about everyone else's politicians because the population continues to vote those same politicians back into office over and over again.
Apple's walled garden that you rant against has direct competition. Samsung makes a wonderful, or so I've heard, phone that is open to loading the apps you want. Capitalism is a wonderful concept. A person or group of people have an idea for a product and create that product for others to buy. If others like that product then they buy it, if not then they don't. Apple is not the only phone on the market. Instead of having the government force your idea of what is best for society the free market will push companies to create products people want or they go out of business. I own and like Apple products. I too am disappointed in many of the choices Apple has made and so I vote with my pocketbook. Examples: Apple chose to remove the headphone jack from their top tier iPhone and so I chose to not buy it. Instead, my family of four all have the 6s model that still has a headphone jack. When I can no longer buy an iPhone with a headphone jack I will no longer buy iPhones. If Apple's bottom line is affected by decisions they make then they will make different decisions. My 2008 iMac fried 2 graphics cards and I decided not to buy another iMac, ever. I was set to buy a revised Mac Mini but when Apple released the "updated" mini which many saw as a down grade I chose not to buy it. Now my family uses my 2012 MacBook Pro as our home machine. I do hope Apple releases a desktop machine I can choose to buy. The day will come when I buy new computer, Mac or PC will be determined by the choices available to me and my needs and preferences.
No one is forcing you to buy an Apple phone.
Be careful giving government too much power to direct lives. Governments put people in jail, not Apple or Coke or any other corporation. Corporations can't confiscate your labor/money, but governments can and do. Millions love the safety of Apple's walled garden and millions love the openness of the Android operating system. You are free to choose. Don't let your choice be what is best for everybody else.
If governments are made up of the people you say they are, then the Italian government is no different. What you see as fighting for the people, many see as extortion of a company. A deal will be made, Apple will pay off the government and keep their walled garden and the politicians will line their pockets with the money that someone else made.
Companies produce products that people freely buy so they can make a profit. Governments take money from people and force what "they" think is best on society at the point of a gun. Remember the type of person you said was in governmental power? Beware of powerful governments, they are the ones with armies, bureaucrats and military.

 

[Swift]

I am completely against this. I like the walled garden. Occasionally there's something I'd like to do but can't but that's rare and (despite some notable exception cases) I prefer the safeguards of app store only. If Apple has to build a process to load apps untethered I would expect that to be exploited for malware.

I agree. The average Android phone has lots of freedom for key loggers and other malware. But it's "free."

 

[dilbert99]

And here we have another example of politicians not understanding how anything works.

I'd usually agree but not in this case.

If I've read the article correctly all they are asking is to make iOS more OSX in terms of how you load software.
I'd hate it if Apple had a walled garden on OSX.
I'd like to have the choice on iOS on where I get my software.
[doublepost=1498382954][/doublepost]

I am completely against this. I like the walled garden. Occasionally there's something I'd like to do but can't but that's rare and (despite some notable exception cases) I prefer the safeguards of app store only. If Apple has to build a process to load apps untethered I would expect that to be exploited for malware.

Thing is it doesn't affect you in the most part. You would still be able to get your apps exclusively through Apple.
[doublepost=1498383099][/doublepost]

So if I like the Samsung TV remote but it won't work with my Sony TV, does that violate my consumer rights? I mean a remote is a remote.

If you don't like the Apple walled garden approach, no one is stopping you from using another type of phone. It's not like you are forced to use Apple. Only then would your free choice be violated. Currently it's just a preference whether you go Apple or Android or Windows Phone. Choice is good. The market will determine what they are happy with can vote with their wallets. If the Apple approach wasn't working for customers they wouldn't be making huge profits.

Thing is if you look at what is happening in OSX app store there are large software developers who have abandoned the app store and gone back to self releasing and hosting from their own site.

The walled garden takes away choice and type of app that can be created.
[doublepost=1498383295][/doublepost]

If side loading apps is important to you, get an Android phone. Problems solved.

How does an Apple user side load iOS apps on to an Android phone?
[doublepost=1498383334][/doublepost]

Allowing non-vetted apps is bad for Apple. The first reports of malware being loaded onto iOS devices will sully the image of the device. Apple won’t go for it. Given a dearth of alternate options, they would much rather just stop selling into Italy. It woudln’t not otherwise be worth the cost.

I suspect there is though, an alternate solution which will cut off the nuts of this legislation.

Works for OSX...
[doublepost=1498383433][/doublepost]

Why can't there be choice?

People can buy what they want, and be told in advance that if they choose to buy the iPhone, they will have to use it within a Wall Garden and its limitations. Some people don't mind the 'limitations'.

Others can choose buy a different phone and be happy about it.

Because you need legislation like this first
[doublepost=1498383612][/doublepost]

That's a very narrow view in today's BYOD world. If a company allows people to use their own device (as mine does), there are limits as to how much you can control the device.

I prefer the walled garden approach - if someone wants a non-walled garden, there is always Android. With fragmentation in the Android world, it is getting increasingly difficult to secure the devices when anyone can accidentally download and install a key logger.

Security is extremely hard in today's world even with a walled garden. Once these politicians realize what they are asking for, they will likely back off just like Europe did with encryption and back doors.

Removing the walled garden is nothing like asking for backdoors in encryption.
So your Mac is insecure because there is no walled garden?
[doublepost=1498383818][/doublepost]

I don't get it, why are there so many of you people spending so much money on phones that don't do what you want? If there was no alternative, maybe I might agree with you, but there are perfectly good phones that will let you install whatever software you want on them. Please, just go buy that and let the rest of us enjoy the service we get from our iPhones.

If you don't like it switch is such a childish thing to say and lacks the imagination to come up with a good argument.

 

[sudo1996]

Yes it does count but iPhones can't side load apps.

With an iPhone alone, you can download apps not from the App Store as long as they're signed with a developer certificate. I downloaded emulators from a website in Safari. But the developer certificates are a barrier that Apple exclusively controls.
[doublepost=1498384120][/doublepost]

And here we have another example of politicians not understanding how anything works.

How what works? They probably don't want Apple controlling the app market.
[doublepost=1498384170][/doublepost]

If you don't like it switch is such a childish thing to say and lacks the imagination to come up with a good argument.

It is a good argument because Android definitely has more marketshare, so it's not like Apple is abusing their power here.

I don't want it to turn to crap. Most people don't care enough about their phones to want to install special software, including me (I used to jailbreak but got bored), and this just opens the doors for so many problems. iOS is secure, won't create any botnets, keeps everyone up to date, and treats the disabled well since the system and third-party apps tend to be very uniform. If you care so much about your "freedom," go use an Android phone, and leave us alone.
[doublepost=1498384796][/doublepost]

Or a free developer account.

You can use free ones now? I thought you had to have one in the paid iOS Dev program.
[doublepost=1498384995][/doublepost]

I do not care either way. It's not about letting malware into the itunes store, it's about allowing people access to other app stores. Anyone that would continue to use only apple's store would have no reason to whine.

Look at the Mac App Store. If iOS went open, it would be like that. Few devs use it, and you're always forced to download stuff from elsewhere.

 

[prowlmedia]

How what works? They probably don't want Apple controlling the app market.

Look at the Mac App Store. If iOS went open, it would be like that. Few devs use it, and you're always forced to download stuff from elsewhere.

Personally I WANT them controlling the Apps. Android Apps are full of memory sapping, Hidden tracking ( not saying Trojans ) buggy software. Apple at least has a vetting process that matters. iPhone apps for the most part lighter and less system intensive.

Consoles are the same - Content is controlled by Xbox live etc - so are Smart TVs, Home automation systems, Car ICE etc.

Apple would end up giving many times more Helpdesk and repair request for someone bad code killing the battery or spitting out their location etc. And apple is and END to END service - You expect good Hardware and fully integrated software. Android is utterly different - you at bet can buy Samsung from a store and you MIGHT get some after sales and updates depending on the network provider. Anything goes wrong you will probably have to send it off an have no phone for 2 weeks.

I like Android - but would I ever recommend it to someone... Nope, no way at all. Mainly as I'd end up having to fix things much as do for friends already with Windoze.

MAC OS - Slightly Different. The Mac app store forces a sandbox n a more open system. I know a lot of Dev making very good money from the App store.

But others that say require file integration - renamers etc can't use it properly as it doesn't allow full access to the computer.

Basically Apple can and should do what they want. They created the iPhone and the App store and ALL the code for things to operate. If Devs are not happy with losing a minimal 30% they can go of to Android... where the play store is oh wait a minute 30% or some of the other android stores where the fees are much less.. oh hold on no they are not they are all about 30%...

What I really don't get on here is the whole hippy "Code should all be free" attitude. Whaaa Apple have created something great and they won't let me have the way I want it.. whaaa Stamp my feet. Close source is Evil Whaaaa...

Don't people have to pay rent / mortgages or feed their kids?

 

[8692574]

Personally I WANT them controlling the Apps.

I am sure 100% of the software you use on your Mac comes from the App Store......NOT!

So why should it be any different on the iPhone??


Oh macOS is pretty safe even without the walled garden so I suppose there's a way to make it work....

 

[MacBH928]

the walled garden approach is limiting, and it certainly is nice to get more capable apps out there...
but it is also safe, no worries about viruses or malware.

Its like living in a gated community, safety is guaranteed.

 

[dilbert99]

If you care so much about your "freedom," go use an Android phone, and leave us alone.

Why not use proper arguments rather than the kind of argument you'd get in the school playground.

There are many reasons as to why the Apple ecosystem should be opened up and no that doesn't need to come at the expense of security. Nor does it threaten anything you like about the system. But it does give others the freedom to install what they like on the device that they purchased. What if I want access to an App that Apple has removed from the store such as it isn't 64 bit or for what ever reason the App is no longer being updated for and gets booted from the app store.

There are great things that developers could do in an iOS app given the chance. I don't have that choice to choose.

Not everyone likes android, I can't comment much because I haven't used it much having had an iPhone from the 3gs through to the 6. I was due to upgrade to the 7 but haven't because Apple pissed me off with removing everything from their devices. Will see what the 8 has to offer and see if they are going to continue differentiating big gets best features and smaller devices are "second class".
[doublepost=1498399016][/doublepost]

the walled garden approach is limiting, and it certainly is nice to get more capable apps out there...
but it is also safe, no worries about viruses or malware.

Its like living in a gated community, safety is guaranteed.

There is no guarantee against malware, those that perpetrate it go for the weakest links and highest gains.
Weakest links would be android apps sources from non App stores. There is a lower risk of malware in App stores.

Higher gains would probably come from iOS and that is not without its attempts - https://www.theiphonewiki.com/wiki/Malware_for_iOS

On balance, yes there seems to be less risk of this on iOS.

 

[kdarling]

Why not use proper arguments rather than the kind of argument you'd get in the school playground.

You can tell it's summer again and school's out:

So many FUD arguments on the forum now, based off a black & white view of things. Not to mention redneck "love it or leave it" comments.

The real world is shades of grey. Allowing something does not mean you must use it. And you don't have to prevent everyone else from doing something you don't want to do.

Oh yeah, and no megacorporation is a true friend and protector.

 

[Thunderhawks]

Heh, just a week ago on a different forum I was defending the smartphone as one of the most comprehensive representations of human ingenuity. Maybe this posting here came off too negative, then, though I would have thought the fact that I still use a smartphone would show I am not a total hater.

Be that as it may. I am forty, I do remember when mobile phones were practically non-existent, and I appreciate the long way we have come since then. But I do not see why I should ignore their flaws. And I am usually not complaining about flaws that have no good solution - e.g. battery life: it is poor, but that is where battery technology is right now, so I accept that and hope one day someone figures out a better battery technology.

No, what irks me are flaws that result from bad decisions. In theory Android could have an update policy like Windows, i.e. independent of the hardware manufacturer. But it does not. And every year Google launches some new initiative to solve the update problem, but it never works out. And the flaws of the iPhone, those things are bad because Apple wants them to be bad, because they sat down and thought long and hard about how bad they could make them without driving away their customers. I have already paid them, I do not think I also have to smile and pretend everything is perfect.

A little far fetched to think Apple wastes time thinking about how they can screw customers. Just the fact that they continue trying to make a better and better iOS (BTW: FREE) should dispell that myth.

I don't like every decision they make (taking out ports, MagSafe eliminated etc.), but my iPhone works great, large iPad will be bought come fall and I hope they leave the door open for non touchbar MBPs. I do not like those MBPs at all.

Back to the main post. The Italian government will not be able to tell Apple how to run their business. It's not a monopoly.

They won't tell Ferrari that they must allow easy installation of Volkswagen parts

 

[BeforeTheMeds]

They won't tell Ferrari that they must allow easy installation of Volkswagen parts

Not remotely the same thing.

A valid comparison would be fiat only allowing parts to be sold in THEIR dealer stores as opposed to being able to sell them in any auto parts store. You can already buy auto parts in other parts stores so putting volkswagon parts on a ferrari is a ridiculous comparison and auto parts are not sold in a walled garden.

Nobody wants to put android apps on an iphone, just be able to get iphone apps in other places. Jeez.

I doubt it will pass but at least understand what they are talking about. It actually is a monopoly on where ios apps can be sold.
[doublepost=1498402327][/doublepost]

You can tell it's summer again and school's out:

So many FUD arguments on the forum now, based off a black & white view of things. Not to mention redneck "love it or leave it" comments.

The real world is shades of grey. Allowing something does not mean you must use it. And you don't have to prevent everyone else from doing something you don't want to do.

Oh yeah, and no megacorporation is a true friend and protector.

Exactly.

 

[zorinlynx]

Yes but if there is a way that iOS will allow non-signed Apps or non-approved Apps to be installed, that WILL become a security hole.

Not necessarily. If you have a switch in Settings that you have to turn on to be able to side load apps, it'll be entirely up to you to throw that switch and open that hole, or leave the switch off and keep things like they are today.

One example is I'd love to be able to sideload emulators, which is pretty much the main useful software category that Apple doesn't allow in the store. Turn on the switch, sideload my favorite emulators from vetted sources, turn off the switch. Now I can run my emulators and still be just as secure as before, provided I trust the emulator authors.... That should be up to ME though, not entirely Apple.

 

[BeforeTheMeds]

ok. Reading the posts there are a lot of people that did not actually understand the article or did not read it.

First off I am not arguing for or against it. Don't really care. Just want to clarify what it is.

1. Apple has a monopoly on where ios apps can be sold and installed legally. Period. They do not on Osx. Dislike the word monopoly all you want, it is what it is. Otherwise show me another ios app store.

2. Its not them wanting to put android apps on an iphone (ridiculous vw parts on a ferrari comparison) its them wanting ios apps to be sold and installed in places other than the ios store. Like being able to go to pep boys in addition to the dealer.

3. Calling the gov of italy a nanny state. It may be but loosening restrictions is not how a nanny state works. In this instance apple's "walled garden" is the nanny state and this is the opposite. Wanting more individual control.

4. If this DID happen nobody would be forced to download in other places so stop with the pouting. It would not affect you. Even so it does not mean they whould have to be shady places, think amazon android store vs google play. When I had android I never had a problem with apps from there. Other app stores can be secure. Only when it comes to apple do people defend lack of choice as a good thing.

Again I feel I have to repeat that I do not care. I have a 6s plus and will probably run it until it dies and look elsewhere.
[doublepost=1498408768][/doublepost]

Not necessarily. If you have a switch in Settings that you have to turn on to be able to side load apps, it'll be entirely up to you to throw that switch and open that hole, or leave the switch off and keep things like they are today.

One example is I'd love to be able to sideload emulators, which is pretty much the main useful software category that Apple doesn't allow in the store. Turn on the switch, sideload my favorite emulators from vetted sources, turn off the switch. Now I can run my emulators and still be just as secure as before, provided I trust the emulator authors.... That should be up to ME though, not entirely Apple.

Not sure why people do not get that. Thats the way android is, you have to flip a switch. Don't flip the switch and don't worry about it.

Its selfishness. I don't want it so nobody should have it.

 

[zorinlynx]

Not sure why people do not get that.

I owned a Palm Pre from 2009 until late 2010 (when I got my first iPhone) and it actually had a developer mode you could turn on right on the phone. It was amusing because you had to actually type the *Konami code* into a search field to expose the switch. "upupdowndownleftrightleftrightbastart". Then the switch would appear and you could flip it on and sideload apps to your heart's content.

Apple could do something like this, and if someone got compromised after doing ALL THAT to sideload apps, you really can't blame anyone but the user.

 

[BeforeTheMeds]

I owned a Palm Pre from 2009 until late 2010 (when I got my first iPhone) and it actually had a developer mode you could turn on right on the phone. It was amusing because you had to actually type the *Konami code* into a search field to expose the switch. "upupdowndownleftrightleftrightbastart". Then the switch would appear and you could flip it on and sideload apps to your heart's content.

Apple could do something like this, and if someone got compromised after doing ALL THAT to sideload apps, you really can't blame anyone but the user.

Modern users seem to want a nanny state. Don't feel they sre capable of making their own decisions, want someone making their decisions and will not accept the blame for anything.

Android also. If you do not change a setting you cannot install the app. Like you say adding a code to allow it would protect them from themselves. For tge nanny state lovers make it where you have to request a code for the first time.

 

[prowlmedia]

I am sure 100% of the software you use on your Mac comes from the App Store......NOT!

So why should it be any different on the iPhone??


Oh macOS is pretty safe even without the walled garden so I suppose there's a way to make it work....

Just checked. About 70% is from the App Store! BUT the main ones - maya, c4d and photoshop Nuke are not.

An iPhone is an applicance now. My gran has one. And she wants something easy like a fridge not a vhs with 7 day recording
[doublepost=1498412486][/doublepost]

Modern users seem to want a nanny state. Don't feel they sre capable of making their own decisions, want someone making their decisions and will not accept the blame for anything.

Android also. If you do not change a setting you cannot install the app. Like you say adding a code to allow it would protect them from themselves. For tge nanny state lovers make it where you have to request a code for the first time.

You see you see it as a conspiratorial Nanny State. I see it as something actually working for once and really simple to use. It's just a complete pain in the butt when it goes wrong. A single code base and vetted apps mean things work well together.

I jailbroke an iPhone a while back to get some function that wasn't included and installed a few apps and it became a crash fest.

 

[MagnusVonMagnum]

So if I like the Samsung TV remote but it won't work with my Sony TV, does that violate my consumer rights? I mean a remote is a remote.

Remotes don't run general 3rd party application software. Your comparison makes NO SENSE. If Apple and Microsoft both decide to force all software through their own storefronts for home computers, what choice do you have then? Linux? Big choices for everyone. It sounds like you're forced to the ONLY alternative at that point (which also has the least commercial software support). Some people need software compatibility and so their choices aren't limited merely by their desire for open and/or free software, but by the reality that it's that or nothing.

Apple controls who and what can release software for iPhones and offers no alternative interface to load software. Jailbreaking your phone violates your warranty among other things. This all limits what you can run (Apple becomes a NANNY STATE advocate that won't allow you to have software that doesn't fit Tim Cook's view of the world or something that "competes" with Apple's software even if Apple's software is buggy and/or horrible). It limits features the authors can offer (e.g. It COULD do 'this' but Apple won't allow it because the API isn't published even though Apple uses that API itself to its own advantage). How many years went by where you could not get any form of Firefox or Chrome for an iPhone or iPod Touch? You were stuck with Apple's horrible Safari browser. Even now, you're not getting "real" versions. This has nothing to do with the hardware capability, but is simply nonsense created by Apple for their own advantages.

Even IF Apple accepts the software an author offers, that author then gets squeezed for 30%+ of their revenue, leading to higher prices to make up for it. Imagine if you could not buy software directly for the Mac. Apple offers a Mac software store. How many people actually buy from it? 23%. Does that number even SUGGEST to you that people LIKE Apple's storefronts or want them controlling it??? No, it does not. It means people HATE the App Store for the Mac. Suggesting 100% use the App store for iOS does not compute because consumers have NO CHOICE and that is the whole point here. Apple is dishonest about security because like the Mac, people could/can choose to still use only the Apple store if they so desire. There's ways they could enhance security even so (registration for "developers" with signed apps for non-app store choices like the Mac already has). The user is then free to make their own choice without Apple directly interfering.

If you don't like the Apple walled garden approach, no one is stopping you from using another type of phone.

Another type of phone that can enforce its own limitations? Is that the type of society we want to live in in the long run? You can choose the left or the right or you can choose to not vote! Yeah, some of us are tired of only two choices that BOTH SUCK while devotees to that those two fight each other tooth and nail over NOTHING (it's like wars where people forgot why they started; by then sheer hatred and brain washing have taken over and it has nothing to do with the original dispute; that's today's politics in the USA).

Computers started out right in the history of the home computer. All software was open to anyone that could write it for any platform they chose. As providers of home computers and operating systems shrunk down to just TWO (three if you count Linux, which is the "Independent" of operating systems with 1% home user share at most), so did your choices and so the control of the owners tightened to do anything they wanted. Microsoft encompassed this best during the 1990s. Commodore went under in 1994 and Apple teetered on the brinks while Linux had like 0.001% share. That left Microsoft free to do just about anything it wanted to and it sure did! It bullied stores into their terms (swiftening how fast Commodore and even OS2, etc. disappeared). It killed Netscape by including Internet Explorer with every computer while Netscape had to be downloaded in the era of slow phone modems.

My point is that if THAT is the type of future you want for computing, then by all means keep pushing for the status quo. Consumer rights have been deteriorating for years, particularly with the DMCA and every more corporate friendly members of Congress and the Supreme Court (in the USA). The last time I checked, this country was founded FOR AND BY THE PEOPLE and not for and by the corporations and robber barons! The early 20th Century showed the same signs of corporations taking over and doing whatever they wanted. Some coal companies only paid in "company money" which means that people could only buy items in their overpriced stores! Children worked with no limits. There were no safety requirements. Companies wanted NOTHING TO CHANGE because any improvements in worker safety meant less profit in their pockets! Sound familiar? We are heading that way again and history is starting to repeat itself.

Apple's "walled" garden has nothing to do with security or safety. It has to do with control and higher profits from a company that is no longer a small fry in the business world. In 1998, Apple was in danger of collapse. Today it's one of the richest tech companies on the planet. The idea that it cannot afford to do things right or keep hardware and/or software up-to-date is ABSURD NONSENSE. It's funny how Tim Cook is so vocal about things like gay rights (because he IS gay and stands to gain from pushing that agenda), but couldn't get a CRAP about making Apple products more affordable where possible or making their products more accessible to the mainstream. The ONLY thing they care about is the bottom line! The pretend to care about the environment, but their disposable product cycles say otherwise. Add solar panels to a ridiculously overpriced "Apple campus" but please throw those iPhones away after 2 years!

It's not like you are forced to use Apple. Only then would your free choice be violated. Currently it's just a preference whether you go Apple or Android or Windows Phone. Choice is good.

So I can choose Tweedle Dee or Tweedle Dum? Microsoft's phone is disappearing like lightning so that leaves the two choices you mentioned. I can choose to be a scum bag Democrat or a scum bag Republican. Some "CHOICE".

The point is that if software is open like it has been for home computer operating systems from the beginning that you can choose your hardware and operating system on FEATURES rather than "limits of what you can run." It should be about competition, not artificial exclusion!

The market will determine what they are happy with can vote with their wallets. If the Apple approach wasn't working for customers they wouldn't be making huge profits.

Is anyone actually "happy" with their choices? You can choose Android and never see a single OS update in your lifetime for any model you buy (since manufacturers are given the "choice" instead of you whether to upgrade) or you can choose Apple's "forced" approach where they encourage you to upgrade until they one day DUMP YOU with zero support overnight. Great. Microsoft is doing the same lately with home computer operating systems. They cannot get people to switch to Windows 10 wholesale through features and carrots, so they've moved to the STICK approach of leaving older operating systems vulnerable to massive security threats, making them unwise to use whether you like them or not and accelerating the time scales involved and making things like opting out of updates IMPOSSIBLE while their key loggers watch everything you do just like the spyware they claim to fight. Rights to privacy? None. Rights to choice? Two. Unhappy customers? All. They sell your identity to advertisers (no choice) and make money off of you while giving you nothing in return. They get richer and you get poorer and tough tomatoes. That's simply "the way it is" or "that's business" or whatever NONSENSE BULLCRAP they feed the masses.

Since when should citizens kow tow to businesses? If these businesses don't like regulations or taxes they can move elsewhere. Enjoy the "security" found in a country like Pakistan or Syria. See how well your business does there. Corporations act like they get nothing by being based in Western countries. The truth is all the top brass want to LIVE HERE but don't want to pay any taxes or contribute anything to society for the security, rights and privileges a Western Democracy affords! They would not exist without countries like the US, but they don't want to give back a damn thing.


[doublepost=1498416301][/doublepost]

Great passion, and while I lean your way on some of the ideas you proffer others seem to contradict them.
How could anyone disagree with the idea of monopolies being a bad thing for a free society? Are too many mergers being approved? I would agree that the government approves far too many as well. Most, I think, would also agree with your words about politicians' character. Sadly, most also seem to think it is about everyone else's politicians because the population continues to vote those same politicians back into office over and over again.

People vote the same people back in office for a number of reasons, the largest being "I've heard of them and I'm ignorant" so I will vote for the name I recognize. Name recognition is the #1 thing to emphasize in commercials. Yes, I'm saying most people are ignorant. There's a reason why early on in the USA that people thought owning land should be a prerequisite to voting. Owning land implies at least some education and letting uninformed uneducated people vote on things can/will be a disaster. And yet we allow the same people to vote for representatives when most don't know one from a hole in the ground. What if both choices suck? Too bad. Democracy fails.

Apple's walled garden that you rant against has direct competition. Samsung makes a wonderful, or so I've heard, phone that is open to loading the apps you want. Capitalism is a wonderful concept. A person or

Are you comparing hardware or software? People act like they're the same market, but this is why our Antitrust Laws have a clause against artificial tying of products to make sales in competing markets. Traditionally, hardware and software were two different markets entirely. I could make a game like Space Invaders for a Commodore 64, Atari 800, Apple II and IBM PC and all I had to do was alter my code to work on them. Here, Apple decides what I can and cannot run or sell. They had no such control with the Apple II or Mac. Why would we, as consumers, WANT a system where we leave all our decisions up to a corporation??? If I want to play Leisure Suit Larry on my iPad, that should be MY CHOICE to make that decision, not Apple's to block it from being sold because it's "adult" in nature. What am I? 5 years old? This has NOTHING to do with the iPhone hardware or even its software. It has to do with Apple playing NANNY for its own image, best interests and money!

Yes, I can buy an Android phone instead. My hardware choices have just been limited in the process. What if Android decides to change their policy and control software as well? Should that even be their choice when they are selling these phones not in a vacuum, but in society as general computing devices?

Yes, when Apple did not allow 3rd party software, you could argue they were selling a SINGLE PRODUCT and the tying clause of the Antitrust Laws we have do not apply (e.g. cable boxes, etc.) But when they started involving 3rd party software authors, they were clearly turning the iPhone into a general computing device and platform for the masses. Should they then have 100% control over what you can run? They could easily offer a CHOICE (like the Mac has) to use their "secure" store or 3rd party software with registered certificates OR use anything by anyone and take your chances. That leaves you with a CHOICE (even if they emphasize their own). You have no choice with the iPhone and that is 100% artificial.

group of people have an idea for a product and create that product for others to buy. If others like that product then they buy it, if not then they don't.

You seem to be under the impression that Capitalism has no limits to it, what-so-ever. We learned in the early 20th Century that having no rules and no regulation lead to working conditions that were abominable. You had children working in coal mines, no safety features on powered equipment (people regularly lost fingers in machinery as there were no emergency stop buttons or safety mechanisms what-so-ever as those would cost the company money to implement.) We do not live in a vacuum! Society has rules and laws and regulations for a REASON. One person's profit should not be the expense of someone else's life. Monopolies threaten all competition (the central focus of "Capitalism" theory is that competition is good for society; if you have no competition then Capitalism has FAILED UTTERLY).

People forget that because they think Capitalism just means unlimited opportunity to control a market and make money for yourself as the business inventor. But without any controls like patents or safety regulations or antitrust laws for business mergers, etc, Capitalism quickly falls apart and turns into a few ultra-rich people ruling the world/country like the Rockefellers or the Carnegies, etc. That's not a successful economic system for society. It leaves you with a few billionaires and a whole bunch of miserable paupers, not that different from the Middle Ages with a few land owners (nobles) and a whole bunch of miserable peasants. You can't afford an education. You can't afford good clothes for an interview. You can't afford anything; you aren't likely to go anywhere, even if you're intelligent.

Apple is not the only phone on the market. Instead of having the government force your idea of what is best for society the free market will push companies to create products people want or they go out of business.

Yeah, I'm sorry, but if that were true there is no way on fracking earth that MS-Dos would have lead Microsoft to rule the computing world in the 1990s over VASTLY SUPERIOR platforms like the Commodore Amiga, Apple Macintosh or even the Atari XT line. MS-Dos was AWFUL and succeeded purely due to business decisions, including finding a legal loophole to screw over IBM and sell the OS to unlimited hardware vendors (cloning), whether using IBM to anchor home computers as a "serious tool" or Microsoft's dirty tricks tactics to force dealers to not carry other brands but Microsoft based ones and only offer computers with their operating system on it. It bullied its way to the top and by the time it had the largest software base, it was entrenched. It has NOTHING to do with having a superior platform. No one I know would call Internet Explorer a superior browser to Netcape or these days Chrome or Firefox. The masses don't know any better, however an use whatever is there. Older people didn't understand computers at all. So it all depends on what your idea of a market is and WHY companies go out of business. If it were the best product, I'd be typing on Commodore Amiga 12,000 right now or something of that nature, not a PC or Mac.

Be careful giving government too much power to direct lives.

I'm talking about open/fair policies and you're talking about putting someone in jail. We make certain companies rich putting people in jail (private prisons) while putting the tax payer on the hook for $50k-73k a year per prisoner. That's a middle class job. Yet its' a cost to the tax payer and a money maker for a company. Similarly, we spent over $1 TRILLION on Iraq and Afghanistan and our debt is higher than ever, but companies like Haliburton made a small fortune for Dick Cheney and the like. Legal? Looks that way, but I'm pretty sure someone like Cheney deserves to be in prison far more than someone that got caught smoking a joint in a state with draconian laws. The funny thing about "justice" is that it's decided by the very people that are control, corrupt or not. Morality rarely has anything to do with it anymore, let alone fairness or equality.

 

[sudo1996]

Why not use proper arguments rather than the kind of argument you'd get in the school playground.

There are many reasons as to why the Apple ecosystem should be opened up and no that doesn't need to come at the expense of security. Nor does it threaten anything you like about the system. But it does give others the freedom to install what they like on the device that they purchased. What if I want access to an App that Apple has removed from the store such as it isn't 64 bit or for what ever reason the App is no longer being updated for and gets booted from the app store.

There are great things that developers could do in an iOS app given the chance. I don't have that choice to choose.

Not everyone likes android, I can't comment much because I haven't used it much having had an iPhone from the 3gs through to the 6. I was due to upgrade to the 7 but haven't because Apple pissed me off with removing everything from their devices. Will see what the 8 has to offer and see if they are going to continue differentiating big gets best features and smaller devices are "second class".

So you want to use iOS due to personal preference and also want to force Apple to make it how you want. How about Apple's choices? It's their product that they put R&D into and you're willingly buying. And there's no monopoly involved, so you have the entire free market as your choice, whereas Apple in this case can only deal with one Italian government (unless the Godfather gets involved ).

What do you mean it doesn't come at the expense of security? Devs will switch from the iOS App Store, and everyone will be forced to download software from elsewhere. That's how it is on Mac, and it sucks. You saw what happened with HandBrake. You're completely ignoring how this could change the ecosystem and calling me a child in response.
[doublepost=1498417599][/doublepost]

Consoles are the same - Content is controlled by Xbox live etc - so are Smart TVs, Home automation systems, Car ICE etc.

Apple would end up giving many times more Helpdesk and repair request for someone bad code killing the battery or spitting out their location etc. And apple is and END to END service

Exactly! They're like Nintendo. You buy the hardware, and everything goes with it. Lots of companies do this, and consumers like it.

 

[germinator]

That's how it is on Mac, and it sucks.

Yeah, that's how it is on the Mac, and it's GREAT.

You saw what happened with HandBrake.

What happened with HandBrake? A mistake by the developers which was quickly fixed. Nothing compared to what happened to the App Store in 2015:

http://money.cnn.com/2015/09/21/technology/apple-xcode-hack/index.html

We all know how well Apple checks the apps in the App store. Your walled garden will not necessarily protect you any better than third-party apps.

You're completely ignoring how this could change the ecosystem and calling me a child in response.

No, you are ignoring the facts and are probably a child judging from your user name.