>A big part of the reason I use Apple products is that they protect not only me, but my family who don't know what the implications of sideloading are. I know that the apps my phone runs have been given the green light by Apple.
This argument always reads like satire, but comes up a lot. You're essentially arguing freedom is dangerous because some people aren't smart enough to handle it.
Apple could always do what Android does and gate it behind a hidden setting. No one is arguing your web browser should be allowed to auto install apps at will, or whatever it is you may be picturing.
>Mandating Apple to allow sideloading is essentially saying "we have no hope of ever developing a competing open platform so we have to use law to force this American company to make us one."
I'm confused on this argument, do you not know Android exists? The issue is that if you want to reach the majority of the public, you have to also support Apple devices, and you have to bend over backwards to their 30% cut and arbitrary rules.
Thank god this attitude wasn't around when Windows was taking off. I think we'd seriously have set back society if every Windows application had to pay Microsoft a 30% fee, and had to pass Microsoft approval.
> You're essentially arguing freedom is dangerous because some people aren't smart enough to handle it.
When it comes to mobile phone apps, 100%. My mum (77) can just about operate a phone, someone who gained her trust (and scammers are very good at that these days) could likely talk her into installing pretty much whatever, and she'd have no idea what was going on. Her only defence in such a situation would likely be giving up because she didn't understand how to follow the instructions. I also have family with learning disabilities.
The idea that we are all fully able, autonomous, powerful and informed at all times is a fantasy. For some people a locked device is pretty much a godsend.
I'm not saying the fees are reasonable, mind. And maybe there is an argument that apple should sell locked and unlocked versions of the phone or something.
You mums problem is not the phone. Her problem is random strangers being able to "talk her into" whatever and as an adult she is still responsible for her actions.
At some point, we have to accept that to operate things in mainstream society requires capability. It is sad when aging parents no longer meet that minimal bar, but it is part of aging for all of us if we live long enough.
At some point, we can no longer drive a car, we can hand over responsibility for finances, and medical decisions. We need a better way to manage old people on their phones.
Maybe sideloading AND "old person mode" should be options on all phones.
> You mums problem is not the phone. Her problem is random strangers being able to "talk her into" whatever.
You're right, the problem is not her phone, because she has an iphone.
> It is sad when aging parents no longer ...
Her problem is less to do with ageing and more to do with not being interested in or exposed to technology in general throughout her life. And it's not just old people, lots of people have issues in those sorts of directions, are we saying "throw them to the wolves" or even "my freedom trumps their safely own a phone at all"?
Personally, I would opt in to "old person mode" on my phone these days, if by that we mean the current state of the iphone ecosystem, as it's a tool and I use it just fine on rails. I think we need to get rid of this toxic idea that 'personal responsibility' is a solution to all things all the time, and that people need to be constantly on guard about scams
25 year-old me would be the opposite of course, attitudes do change, and I'd like to see both approaches accounted for. I agree wholeheartedly that monopolies are bad and that markets need to be managed for both people and economies to thrive. But I'm also perfectly happy with a walled garden for myself and my less capable family members.
> You're right, the problem is not her phone, because she has an iphone.
The problem is her. If she is gullible enough to be talked into sideloading she is vulnerable enough to be talked into worse. You don't need to sideload anything to make a bank transfer.
Yes, but at least one avenue of attack is cut off by using a walled-garden phone.
The problem is scammers. We have a lot of vulnerable people in this world, saying “well obviously they’re too stupid to participate in modern society” isn’t really a good answer.
> Her problem is less to do with ageing and more to do with not being interested in or exposed to technology in general throughout her life
We do all sorts of things in life (that have nothing to do with technology, even) where we are required to develop, at minimum, some sort of basic understanding of the safe way of doing those things. And then we take responsibility, and follow those safety guidelines. Or we don't, and then have no one to blame but ourselves if it blows up in our faces.
There certainly should be guardrails on phones that can be enabled for people who are aging and suffering mental decline, or just have developmental disabilities in general. Or, sure, for people who just don't care, and want someone else in their family to "deal with all that nerdy stuff" for them. But building systems for the lowest common denominator is rarely the right solution.
> 25 year-old me would be the opposite of course
I'm in my 40s, so I don't think my take on this has much to do with age.
> Or we don't, and then have no one to blame but ourselves if it blows up in our faces.
Actually we have scammers to blame, this is pure victim-blaming on your part. I find it pretty awful when this sort of attitude is displayed towards people who are the victims of crime.
One perfectly valid way to take responsibility for oneself is to choose a secured platform that precludes these sorts of problems happening in the first place. Given that people must use technology to interact with their government, and increasingly their finances, this seems a great way to go about things.
> But building systems for the lowest common denominator is rarely the right solution.
This is a moral viewpoint, not a practical one. Pragmatically, it clearly is a perfectly fine solution for a lot of people. Myself included.
None of this is to say you shouldn’t e able to buy an open platform if you want one, but not everybody does, and it’s not to everyone’s advantage.
If that's really your stance, then I don't think there's a productive discussion to be had here. Your fundamentals are incompatible with mine.
But there are still solutions there: perhaps enabling sideloading should wipe the phone (like unlocking the bootloader does on Android). Or perhaps some sort of "parental controls" where it requires a PIN to enable, but people who set up phones for their parents can keep the PIN from them.
The solution doesn't have to be to lock it down for everyone, without any escape hatches. But Apple likes it this way, not for the safety it can provide, but because it's a part of their business model. But I don't care about their business model, and it's normal and right that governments regulate the kinds of things companies can do.
I absolutely see the nefarious, selfish, profit-driven side to Apple locking their phones down.
But proponents of opening it up need to realise that the status quo is a real, practical benefit to a portion of society as well.
By all means, let’s talk about ways it can work for everyone, monopolies are bad too. But while we’re doing it, let’s try not to blame or exclude people who aren’t computer-security savvy, or make their world worse.
I've been gradually forming this more general thought that we've massively neglected the value of review and maintenance of almost everything.
A new building or machine is reviewed once just like a scientific publication. A book or article might never get even a superficial review.
People are even offended if their things or things they want are critically examined and more so when others block it. Business Models that depend on monopolies on the right to review are possibly the most hilarious.
Edit: Search engines even rank things by quality without review.
I don't really understand the difference between the argument disallowing all sideloading to protect the elderly, and banning phone calls/the mail to protect the elderly.
This argument always reads like satire, but comes up a lot. You're essentially arguing freedom is dangerous because some people aren't smart enough to handle it.
Apple could always do what Android does and gate it behind a hidden setting. No one is arguing your web browser should be allowed to auto install apps at will, or whatever it is you may be picturing.
>Mandating Apple to allow sideloading is essentially saying "we have no hope of ever developing a competing open platform so we have to use law to force this American company to make us one."
I'm confused on this argument, do you not know Android exists? The issue is that if you want to reach the majority of the public, you have to also support Apple devices, and you have to bend over backwards to their 30% cut and arbitrary rules.
Thank god this attitude wasn't around when Windows was taking off. I think we'd seriously have set back society if every Windows application had to pay Microsoft a 30% fee, and had to pass Microsoft approval.