Some people need more functionality than iOS and its associated apps provide to do their jobs (ie embedded development/testing) among other things. Sure, "just go to Android/whatever" but Apple is quickly gaining a monopoly on not-shitty hardware and the combination of these two things is not ok by any stretch of the imagination.
Apple could provide the option of unlocking the bootloader and providing some driver code for their peripherals so we could make our own system, but they don't and that fact suggests there's a more sinister objective to this game. They exist to make as much money through their app store as possible and will not give up any control.
“ Some people need more functionality than iOS and its associated apps provide to do their jobs (ie embedded development/testing) among other things. ”
The open PC market is doing really well these days. Like, there’s a huge silicon shortage.
“Apple has a monopoly on not shitty hardware”
I have to chuckle. It’s almost like we want Apple to become a utility that must by government fiat build this great hardware but we now are going to force their software to operate the way a committee wants.
I am for regulation when it benefits consumers broadly (though unintended consequences abound). But this feels like pandering to a niche: potential dealers and tech tinkerers that never wanted the PC to become a consumer product.
There is nothing sinister of about running a business with focus and vertical integration. Apple tried an OEM model once, it didn’t work well for them (in part because Microsoft and Intel had that model locked up).
I had a chuckle at that too, I've seen a lot of monopoly arguments devolve into, [x] is too good, [y] can not compete with a similar but lower quality offering, this is anti competitive.
> Apple is quickly gaining a monopoly on not-shitty hardware
By "quickly gaining a monopoly", do you mean they've somehow made it impossible for another multi-billion dollar company to do a decent job on designing and building a phone?
The building gets hard when the executives at Microsoft and Samsung and Intel or Alphabet get complacent with their rent seeking from Windows/Office licensing, or ad revenue, or whatever other reason they can’t stomach investing billions of dollars into R&D and in person retail customer service.
Microsoft really cracks me up, they went as far as opening up retail locations all over the country, they just needed to invest for another 10 years and come up with something that can compete with iOS, and they decided to call it quits after a few years. Presumably because the expenses during the decade that is required to build trust with the public would cause an unacceptable hit to their financials and hence the bosses’ pockets, even though it would have benefited Microsoft after 10 to 15 years.
And now they get to compete with Apple’s own processors for laptops and desktops, for which they are behind another 10 years. Because they choose not to invest in their own employees and R&D, because they already have that sweet Office licensing revenue so why bother.
> Apple could provide the option of unlocking the bootloader and providing some driver code for their peripherals so we could make our own system, but they don't and that fact suggests there's a more sinister objective to this game. They exist to make as much money through their app store as possible and will not give up any control.
Why is it that people argue for changing Apple instead of just using other competing devices?
It’s that we don’t want iOS to be like any other computer system - the simplicity and lack of choice is a feature, not a bug.