It's always bugged me that iOS creates specialized one-off APIs for accessing things like Health and the photo library, instead of a generic, extensible interface that third-party apps could use to create their own shared data stores. Why should I have to depend on Apple to decide that a particular kind of health data should be allowed?
Similarly, Android has a generic "intent" interface you can use to jump out into another app to get data from the user (take a photo, open a file, scan a QR code, etc.), while iOS has a bajillion different UIWhateverViewControllers that cover only the use cases Apple thought of and can only launch system apps.
Similarly, Android has a generic "intent" interface you can use to jump out into another app to get data from the user (take a photo, open a file, scan a QR code, etc.), while iOS has a bajillion different UIWhateverViewControllers that cover only the use cases Apple thought of and can only launch system apps.
Apps has had that since iOS 8. Thats exactly how the share sheet works.
Honestly, I think this touches too close to the “default apps” issue that Apple has been quite recalcitrant on, and in my opinion it won’t be fixed until they change their mind on this. They have the technology in place to do this safely, so at this point this has to be a choice they’ve made. However, to address a specific concern about your first point: I do find it convenient to have one central location for all these things, as opposed to a dozen different home automation and health tracking apps or random folders on my filesystem for photos. Apple might be heavy handed in limiting categories here because it keeps data consistent and prevents issues where years of menstrual cycle data was being added under a custom “Periods” category and format that’s incompatible with this year’s “Cycles” measurement.
I don't see how you can possibly justify that claim as it seems to be to not only be false, but to be extremely far from being true.
I would say that the history of computing over the last 40 years has succeed ONLY because users were able to control their computers, install any software they wanted and grant that software complete control of the computer.
If users had spent the last 40 years only able to do "safe" things with their computers, we would have nowhere near the level of innovation we have today and our economic growth would be stunted.
It is only in the last ~10 years that OS's that don't have the ability to grant root access have seen real success. Even then, communities invariably spring up that find ways to get the ability to grant root access.
Yes, there are very good reasons to be careful about how you design the process of granting root access, but there are also very good reasons to grant that access. I am perfectly fine with the process being arcane, hidden and full of warnings, but it should be doable directly on the device.
Yes because most people really care about root access. Are you really saying that the current state of PCs and Android to a lesser extent with viruses, ransomware, etc is better for the average user?
I download things silly nilly on iOS because I trust the sandbox. I won’t download random crap on my computer.
Apple has less than 20% of the mobile phone market.
How convenient for Apple fans to talk about "profit share" when app stores are discussed and "market share" when antitrust comes up.
I'm saying that the "benevolent dictator" model that Apple is following results in a concentration of power that is ipso facto bad for society and that Apple should be broken up. If Apple must survive in its current form it should be placed under democratic control, not under shareholder control, and should be subject to the checks and balances of a judicial system.
Ultimately, Apple should not be the only party to have a say in what's allowed on its platforms, just like the president is not the only person to have a say in who's allowed into the country.
Guess what? Every console maker gets to decide what is allowed on their platform - it’s been that way since the early 80s. Should they be broken up to?
And “society” doesn’t care about “openness”. Do you really think most iOS users are worried about not being able to get apps outside of the App Store?
Average users are not the only people that matter, despite what Robert Bork wants you to think.
What is wrong is the concentration of power within a company answerable only to shareholders. Even democratically elected governments need to be heavily scrutinized for abuses of power.
