> Or should people to restaurants and demand to be allowed to order food delivery from other places to their tables, and bring their own drinks?

A restaurant is private property, you're just a customer in someone else's turf. An iPhone (and the individual iOS copy inside it that provides the advertised functionality) is the intellectual property of Apple, but also the private property of the user, and it is the traditional property ownership status that determines who gets to interact with the functionality. Apple is unfairly forcing themselves into the dev-user relationship here.

▲

carlosjobim 7 hours ago | parent [-]

An iPhone is the private property of the user, and if you are skilled enough you can jailbreak it and there is nothing Apple can do about it. If you're not skilled to do it, then that's your own problem. No court of law would go against you if you took a soldering iron and your expertise to change your iPhone in any way you please. Apple shouldn't be obliged to help you in those efforts, though.

> Apple is unfairly forcing themselves into the dev-user relationship here.

Who was forced to buy an iPhone? Who was forced to develop for Apple devices?

▲

fl0id 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

So if you were forced to keep f.e. a door lock on your house (that you bought), because as part of the purchase the developer required it - would you be fine with it too? You could technically jail break it...

▲

EMIRELADERO 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

> An iPhone is the private property of the user, and if you are skilled enough you can jailbreak it and there is nothing Apple can do about it. If you're not skilled to do it, then that's your own problem.

No, because Apple chooses to prevent me from controlling the device the way I want. The skill involved is about finding holes in the system, not in enabling an "expert mode" or something.

The imbalance of power is itself a problem. A hardware manufacturer should be legally prohibited from designing their devices in such a way that they retain more control over them post-sale than the actual owner. Device ownership should mean maximum control over code execution.

> Who was forced to buy an iPhone?

Nobody, but I'm not a free market absolutist.

> Who was forced to develop for Apple devices?

Every developer who wants to cater to ~half of the mobile user population (~85% if it's young Americans)

▲

chongli 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

I assume an expert mode (where you can sideload anything you want) is what you are asking for. To that I raise the standard objection: how do you protect grandma from having a criminal social-engineer her into enabling expert mode and then having her sideload malware onto her device?

	▲	rstat1 3 hours ago \| parent [-]
		I mean if you're gonna stop people from owning their device and doing what they want with it just because of the possibility of crime occurring then their are quite a few more things that probably should also no longer exist because of their potential use in crime. That's a pretty ridiculous argument if you ask me.

▲

carlosjobim 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

> No, because Apple chooses to prevent me from controlling the device the way I want.

They have no power to prevent you from doing anything you want to your device. Just like Ford has no power to stop me from modifying my truck in any way I want. Or any other product from any other company.

Not helping you is something different, that's not preventing.

> Every developer who wants to cater to ~half of the mobile user population (~85% if it's young Americans)

That's a choice for them to make. You might then say that Coca-Cola is forcing supermarkets to carry their product because customers want to buy them.

	▲	EMIRELADERO 3 hours ago \| parent [-]
		> They have no power to prevent you from doing anything you want to your device. Just like Ford has no power to stop me from modifying my truck in any way I want. Or any other product from any other company. They have the technical ability to prevent me from running the code I want, and they exercise that ability for that purpose. They're not a passive actor in this situation, they explicitly block me from doing things that they themselves can do, even after the sale. Again, this should be a concern merely because of the power imbalance. > That's a choice for them to make. You might then say that Coca-Cola is forcing supermarkets to carry their product because customers want to buy them. Not the same thing at all. The mobile app market is a top-level one in a way the Coca-Cola one is not. Apple is controlling a huge amount of commerce for products that have nothing to do with them, besides being digital accessories to iDevices. The better analogy would be: there are only two store companies in the entire US. If you want to sell any product at all, of any category (silverware, food, lawnmowers etc) you must contract with them and there's no other way, and anyone who wants to purchase any product whatsoever only has those two options.