“I don’t like it when car companies don’t allow subcompact crossovers to do heavy towing. Such cars are increasingly people’s primary vehicle for everything. And many times their only vehicle!”
Seriously, most people don’t need their phone to qualify as a computer under your definition. You’re actually being somewhat presumptuous when you infer that people must own at least one “proper” computer.
I simply don’t agree. It’s not Apple’s responsibility to make products that compensate for bad national governments.
And I reject the claim that the scale of the issue is different between a phone and a games console. Who are you to say that a games console can’t be used for secure communications by protesters? That is equivalent to saying that we should be more concerned about crackdowns against journalists than against political satirists.
"I don’t like it when car companies don’t allow subcompact crossovers to do heavy towing"
Unintentional irony? You are apparently not aware that this is a perennial topic among car enthusiasts, because people noticed that small vehicles usually have much smaller tow ratings (if any) in the US than Europe, even though they seem to be mechanically the same. In the US, people use massive trucks to tow, and from what I've read, in Europe, they don't seem to need them.
Not irony at all, the analogy still fits. I can defy vehicle towing restrictions, I can weld extra metal to the sub-frame, I can fit a larger radiator to the engine and stiffer springs to the rear axle. I can do many things to make my subcompact crossover physically capable of towing a large load.
And I can jailbreak an iPhone.
————————
You could also buy a proper truck suited to the task.
And you can buy a proper computer suited to the task.
Absurd comparison. A subcompact is just not designed to tow a large load. But no one tries to keep you from modifying it. Apple purposely restricts your freedom.
I reject the distinction as entirely semantics. It's equally true to say that a car maker "purposely restricts" towing capacity in its small, lightweight models by making them small and lightweight.
Apple designs its iOS products to have a fully managed software-hardware ecosystem. That has a direct consequence of limiting libre freedom, but that doesn't mean Apple opposes the idea of giving customers freedom. They'll happily sell you a different computer with more freedom.
The car maker designs its subcompact crossover to have low cost and good fuel economy. That has the direct consequence of limiting towing capacity, but that doesn't mean the car maker opposes the idea of giving customers towing capacity. They'll happily sell you a different vehicle with more towing capacity.
Let's review:
Managed ecosystem <————> Able to execute whatever
Small and lightweight <————> Able to tow heavy loads
The analogy holds. More fundamentally I care more about customers having the right to choose the best product for themselves, rather than having @anoncake decide what's best for all of us.
"Managed ecosystem" is just a euphemism for restricting freedom.
> They'll happily sell you a different computer with more freedom.
Not one that fulfills the same purpose. Macs hardly fill the same niche as iPhones. If Apple sold both restricted and free iPhones at the same price, no one would object. Then customers would have a choice rather than Apple deciding what's best.
"Small and lightweight" is just a euphemism for can't tow for shit.
I'm sorry, but I don't think you understand how capitalism works. Apple isn't forcing anyone to buy an iPhone, other brands are available. And Apple isn't forced to make products which comply with your personal desires.
Now that you brought up capitalism, what do you think about the level of competition in the cell phone (OS) market?
I’d be hard pressed to call Apple a monopoly given their market share, but obviously market dominance isn’t a black/white thing (since even a real monopoly may have 99% market share and 1% competition). By some metrics that are relevant to certain markets (like app store revenue) Apple may have a majority market share, which probably gives them quite a lot of leverage and ability to engage in anti-competitive behavior.
More broadly it’s a market dominated by two trillion dollar companies with big network effects, which is a reduced level of competition compared to most other things, and it may be harmful for consumer choice for competition to also be reduced in other markets (like non-OS software or marketplaces for such) due to tying products together.
I don’t personally have a strong opinion on this but I think there’s a reasonable case to be made for regulation on those grounds. The challenge would be finding rules that are simple and clear cut without micro managing what companies can build.
Ok, so isn't it reasonable to acknowledge that society may bear real costs if towing capacities are arbitrarily reduced in US jurisdiction? People are discouraged and lose the benefit of towing which has economic value. People learn one more reason to doubt what they are officially told. Some people waste resources on bigger vehicles than they need. On the flip side, maybe fewer people have accidents from incorrect loading, going too fast, etc. But we can at least speculate that restrictive policies have consequences, which might be worse than other, less restrictive policies.
You seem to be assuming that the differences don't have a rational basis. Cars are generally homologated for a large geographic area, which might include Arizona even if the car is sold in Canada. Towing limit standards may also be defined differently in law.
Hypothetically the regulations might specify that the vehicle must be capable of safely towing the stated load without overheating at X incline at Y speed for Z time at A altitude, be able to stop in B meters, plus C overall safety margin. It's entirely reasonable and rational that the values of X, Y, Z, A, B and C might be different in Europe and North America.
A cell phone is increasingly people's primary computer for everything. And many times their only computer!