So any computer (phone, tablet, laptop, desktop, watch) would have to allow installing whatever software the user wants. On the hardware level.
That would mean alternative OSes like Linux could run on any computer.
It would still be allowed to ask or even warn the user "Do you REALLY want to install an alternative OS?" but not to ultimately deny it.
But it's clear that isn't what people want. If it was they would be buying it. What they want is what Apple sells. They want iOS. They want the apps and the app store. They want the hardware and the polish. They just also want to be able to install arbitrary software packages.
You can't get that with a law that allows people to install whatever OS they want at the hardware level.
The apps for my bank, the local bus transit system, electronic payments, and even my kid's school, are only available for iOS and Android, and the first three use Google exclusionary software to lock out non-Google OSes. You must have a Mac or Windows computer, or iOS or Google Android, to run the proprietary software used as single-sign-on for most government web apps.
Very few are willing to live without those apps.
If we lived in a world that was like the 90's computers era, where Apple was dominating the software front and by extension the hardware front. If people only ever developed for iOS, and most never bothered with even a cursory port to android; then maybe it would be reasonable to say that Apple's business practices make Librem or even Android unappealing to consumers and anti-competetive in the market.
But the evidence just doesn't seem to support that. Most developers are clearly willing to write two versions of their apps. Certainly the major vendors are. Apple doesn't sell their OS for any other hardware except their own, and there are multiple other hardware vendors, so it's not a case of "have to bundle an iOS license with every phone regardless of the OS shipped".
The conclusion has to be that there's something specific about Apple's combination of hardware and software that makes it compelling despite the lack of open access. So the question then becomes what is it that Apple is offering that open platforms can't or won't offer?
I would certainly try out Linux on one of the new 13" iPad Pros with anti-glare display. With an external keyboard, it could make for a great mobile development machine.
And many kids would certainly have dual booted their iPhone into Android when Fortnight stopped working on iOS.
Just two use cases. Who knows how many there are.
As evidenced by the existence of this sub-thread, that is not true.
If we owned our devices, if property law applied, not only would amti-anti-cirumvention be legal, anti-cirumvention would be illegal. It's not your right to control this device, maker. It's mine now.
Okay, but note that this would affect all media protected by DRM … books, movies, and most streamed content. Not so simple to outcompete the lobbyists.
(Because otherwise, you bought a service and not a product; also: if I buy a device and want to use it to do business with someone else, why does the vendor of the device have anything to say about it? Don't I own my device?)
As long as it applies to all companies, why is it an issue?
They still cost the same to make regardless, and they’d still need some form of distribution that would take a cut.
PC games aren’t any cheaper at launch than console games. Console games don’t become any cheaper when the cost of manufacturing goes down over the course of a generation.
I’m not arguing that Apple’s geofence is a good solution.
But you can argue that this completely compromises the ability to deliver a secure platform. If you want a platform like that, get Android or F-droid.
Also you can’t install Linux on Android due to the closed specs and proprietary derivers. Not even on Google Pixels advertized by the GrapheneOS crowd.
Allowing the user to install and run any software does result in a less secure system.
Also if that software is run in a sandboxed way (but allowing installation from anywhere).
Because software could impersonate and trick the user into giving away sensitive information, such as credit card data, or authentication to act on behalf of the user.
> By this logic, Linux servers are insecure.
Yes, if we go with there being one single thing called "Linux servers", they are insecure by the same measurement.
I would differentiate between mobile software that targets end users and server software that targets professionals.
With server operating systems, you provide secure/convenient defaults (with Linux distros often leaning towards convenient), but you always provide the systems administrator the ability to `curl ... | sudo sh`. You also say it is the system administrator's fault if they ever do that and something goes bad. If you are a platform owner with millions of users, you cannot claim security when you allow for any code to be run, sandboxed or not.
It'll hit them hard when the EU punishes them again for malicious compliance, and when other countries enact similar laws.
Anyone tried to think a bit back and see where this comes from? it's the EU laws that are demanding this. Since their laws are different (note: I'm not taking sides. I'm not saying there are better or worse, just stating they are as they are). Developers just have to confirm. I does not matter at all if it's apple or google or microsoft or whatever company is involved, the thing is multiple markets have different laws and developers have to follow suit.
