Ah, these are pretty simple things. We don't allow to sell any drugs, or some drugs without prescription, because drugs are hard and require education. So do computers.
The big question here is one simple thing: property.
Imagine someone selling you a house and despite that you think you own the house the seller defines what things you can or cannot have in your own house, and even the ones he let you have, you must buy through them (so they can get a tax and force control) and if suddenly they are not ok with that anymore, it can simply vanish from your home.
"Hey look, you cant have that knife that its not from Apple Houses, it will hurt your kids.. we are always thinking on your safety"
Then you buy a car that you think its the one you like, but its not on you Apple Home store, so you are not allowed to drive that car.
But hey Apple homes have said its for your own safety,
because that car was evaluated and could kill your wife.
In this case its clear "Apple Homes" succeeded in through marketing in psycological tatics to influence the house owner to do be ok with those things and still think he actually owns the house while the property is in reality leased where they define what you can access to or what can simply vanish even if you bought them.
I just cant understand how people can try to defend this sort of behaviour even when its clear it goes against their self interests and can damage them in several ways.. as the parent have said, just some sort of "stockholm syndrome" can explain this.
> Imagine someone selling you a house and despite that you think you own the house the seller defines what things you can or cannot have in your own house
That's exactly like housing in developed world works, lol. When you buy a flat in Germany, you implicitly agree on a huge set of rules.
No one would allow you to buy a flat and turn it into a brothel or a disorderly house, or even run a pretty legal business in it) And many have additional rules, like not playing piano too loud.
But your analogy is wrong. Apple doesn't prohibit you to do something with your phone, they regulate the service they provide to you on a constant basis. Following your analogy if you've bought a flat, nobody is obliged to deliver food to you, especially when some food vendors do not comply with delivery's rules.
Rules for society and commutative living is understandable, as the rights of a collective should be as equal or bigger than the rights of a individual.
This line of thinking doesnt apply in the relationship between Apple, its developers and its consumers.
Its a direct relationship and we are trying to understand here what rights Apple have vs. the rigths their developers and consumers have.
> Following your analogy if you've bought a flat, nobody is obliged to deliver food to you, especially when some food vendors do not comply with delivery's rules.
What you are lacking here is that theres a conflict of interest going on.
The better scenario would be "Apple Homes Inc" also owning a fast-food chain, having the power to define, the food delivery you have access to.
The key thing here, is that they do it before you are even aware you are lacking options. So you wont feel as freedom of choice is being taken from you, because when you look at the "food store", you have options. And having options make you feel that you have choices and freedom, while you actually dont.
Some people like you, could be fine with it. But my main point is that its breaking foundamentals laws our societies are built on. Freedom, property, etc..
There is no specific law yet, because its unregulated. But im pretty sure that once law experts decide to really tackle this issue, some of those things will get much clearer.
A company like Apple or Google have too much power with this, and you can imagine the mess if somehow the powerful of the world get their hands on this powerful pipelines that can control the lifes of so many..
Without good and effective laws to really regulate them, we can be in a mess real quick.
(And im not even debating the rights of people who create apps and are dumped with clients wanting their products but not being able to reach them, because Apple forbid them with bogus reasons)
The risk coming from malware to end users on laptops is about 0.1% of the risk from cars, and following the message in scary red letters is pretty simple too.
Ah, these are pretty simple things. We don't allow to sell any drugs, or some drugs without prescription, because drugs are hard and require education. So do computers.