You're making my point for me. Why should I have to worry that clicking on a link in a browser will destroy my personal device? Am I not allowed to live in a world where that cant happen? Its amazing how much 'Stockholm syndrome' windows and intel have brought to computing. As if we HAVE to be prisoners to this concept, and then love it too!
No, I'm not making your point for you. You are lobbying for a scenario in which the end user has no personal responsibility for their actions. You want to instead put that responsibility on the device manufacturer or app developers who, while they have a duty to provide the best product they can, are not realistically able to forecast every action of every consumer beforehand. You should know better than to click that link if you don't know where it is from. You literally lose nothing except MAYBE you don't get to see yet another Hamster Dance or cat video.
The issue with security is that all doors need locks and therefore keys. But if a door exists there is a way in, either getting the key or breaking down the door. Thats why if you have a wall no one can get through. The less doors and keys the less issues that can happen. Thats why there is a walled garden. Its by design. And it works. Look at the number of security exploits on iOS vs Android over the years, or any other system. Its not even in the same ball park.
The number of security exploits on iOS vs Android are actually quite similar, and major security researchers are now saying Android may now have the upper hand in this space, and it's been this way for a couple of years now at least.
https://onezero.medium.com/is-android-getting-safer-than-ios-4a2ca6f359d3
It maybe anti-trust in terms of how it benefits businesses in the market but I dont believe reducing choice actually benefits consumers. What is actually happening is that the govt is saying you CANNOT produce and OS that is secured by not allowing 3rd party distribution. Even though allowing 3rd party distribution is an attack vector for malicious files. They are therefore also saying console OS's should not exist either as its the same model. How is that helping consumers? They are reducing choice in favour of 3rd party businesses who want to make money off consumers. That is perverse.
Again, you're not reducing choice, you're increasing it by allowing folks more ways to purchase apps for their devices. That is the central focus, not whether iOS and Android are different animals. They always will be, even if iOS allows 3rd party stores. And those 3rd party businesses wanting to make money off consumers? That's what they are in business for, even when selling via Apple's store. Nothing perverse about it, they just want more of the money they earn through sales than Apple is willing to allow them to keep if they use the Apple store. They have a right to decide that, and to sell their software to anyone who wants to buy it, even if it's outside the App Store.
AT&T had a monopoly. Apple dont have a monopoly in the mobile space. Apple's OS is not physically entrenched like phone lines! Its easy for them to lose their position (ask Nokia, Blackberry etc..). Money doesnt mean you win (ask Windows Phone).
Apple is exercising monopoly power in *app distribution* on the iOS/iPadOS platforms, not in the wireless device market. They are completely different and you keep conflating them because it's convenient for your argument, but it's not a logically valid or cogent argument. Same with saying they aren't physically entrenched in the phone lines. It sounds good, but it is irrelevant to the actual issue.
What the govt is saying that a company cannot make a system and provide updates for that system. That is a lot of businesses (Canon printers.. ice cream machines etc...). There are a lot of legal precedents being made where people do not understand their consequences.
Except the government isn't saying that at all. Not even remotely. Apple can update their OS, their devices, their services all day long. They just can't prevent you from purchasing software you want to run on a device you legally own when the only thing stopping it is their gatekeeping. If nobody developed or could develop for iOS, that would be another story. We see devices with closed OS's all the time that aren't designed to run 3rd party applications. But this is not the case with Apple. They not only open their OS to outside developers, they encourage it, but then only allow you to sell it via their store, at a commission that they demand.
You bring up printers, which is actually a good example of my point. I don't recall if it is still the case, but HP and other manufacturers got in trouble some years back because they required you to use their toner/ink cartridges and nobody else's or the would void your warranty. The *only* reason they had for this was to make more money off the consumer and limit where they could purchase, even though perfectly working, acceptable, and safe alternatives were on the market. The courts were not kind to HP, and HP has been in trouble several times since for trying to block 3rd party cartridges with fake error messages that prevent the printer from functioning, etc. Do you really want Apple to engage in similar practices? I for one, do not, and since I legally own the device after purchase, I have some legal say in the matter.
