A father in Georgia was just convicted of second degree murder, child cruelty, and other charges because he failed to prevent his kid from shooting up his school.
>Completely missing point of what I said and making a straw man out of it isn’t the gotcha moment you seem to think it is.
Okay, so what's the point of what you said? For reference, you said:
>Good, switch to it for a couple of years, use multiple vendors and then let everyone know how Android is a viable alternative to iOS.
What, then, is the point of what you said? You seem to believe that Android is not a viable alternative to iOS. What specific actions do you believe Apple should be required to take here?
>I’m not so sure that “I can choose” to stay in the walled garden, if, for example, Spotify decides to only be available through another App Store that I don’t consider trustworthy.
Sure you can. You can decide which is more important to you: "Having an iPhone" or "Using Spotify on my mobile phone."
>Good, switch to it for a couple of years, use multiple vendors and then let everyone know how Android is a viable alternative to iOS.
"I want Apple to be forced into making the same choices that its competitors made because those competitors' devices are, collectively, a miserable hellscape," isn't the winning argument you seem to think it is.
>This is a false choice - there's no reason the iPhone can't be both a walled garden-type device and support alternative OSes/software, just like a computer.
Correct. There is no reason the iPhone cannot be both.
There is also no reason why Apple should be required to make it both simply because that's what a vanishingly small number of vocal malcontents wish for.
>In the case of epic it was not about the privacy settings but about the percentage they had to pay for on every transaction which is a different issue.
The claim wasn't that nobody was sideloading for privacy settings. The claim was "Facebook doesn't use sideloading on the android platform, neither does any of the other big companies."
>I kind of agree that less privacy protection this is a concern, but I think that should be solved by additional privacy laws.
Oh, that's a great idea. We should definitely rely on laws alone for this. VC-backed technology firms are well-known for willingly abiding by the spirit of laws—especially privacy laws. They definitely aren't filled with people whose entire job is finding the slimist things they can get away with.
Or—and I'm just spitballing here—we could have both the additional privacy laws and also a competitive marketplace where at least one vendor decides to use privacy as a market differentiator while leaving people free to choose to buy from other vendors with other priorities.
You should have multiple options, but third parties should not be required to provide you with an option that gives you 100% of what you'd like to have.
"I get to choose" does not mean "I get to have a bespoke solution."
>Facebook doesn't use sideloading on the android platform, neither does any of the other big companies.
1. Epic.
2. Unlike Google, Apple each year pours thousands of hours of developer effort into making it harder for Facebook to track users without their consent. The difference between "what is allowed in the store" and "what is possible on the device" is greater on iOS.
>I want a phone that is as fast as a flagship phone like an iPhone, with a keyboard, daylong or better battery life running fullblown Debian. What shall I buy? It doesn’t exist.
Have you ever paused to consider why your mobile unicorn doesn't exist?
Jim Lovell would like a word.