> We know because this exact strategy works just fine on Apple's other computer platform, the Mac. Personally, I hate that our phones, which increasingly are our personal computer, are often no longer just a general purpose compute device to use how I want, if i want.
I think this is the heart of the disagreement between people who like the iPhone walled garden (I’m one of them) and people who agree with you. I think it’s where reasonable people can disagree (except of course when it comes to broad legislation protecting or prohibiting such walled gardens).
I don’t think the iPhone is comparable to a personal computer like a Mac, even though of course the hardware and software architecture is very similar (and increasingly so). I still think that smartphones are, for most people (especially people who are aware of the key differences between iOS and Android and still make an informed choice to use iOS), much more like “integrated consumer electronics devices” like gaming consoles, or car infotainment systems, or heck even a microwave (your microwave probably also contains at least one Turing-complete stored-program architecture computer).
All devices you listed, including iPhones, would have no downsides from being open. Quality of software has nothing to do with user restrictions. Even the opposite: the more open a platform is, the easier users can improve it and find/fix bugs. It's security through obscurity versus openness all over again. I would gladly hack my microwave to get rid of a stupid, long, loud sound at the end of its work.
What about following counter-example. There're many tiny apps that are next-to-required. E.g. mass transit tickets, paying for parking, banking apps. With the walled garden, they've to stick to at least some standards. Now if we open up the platform, what stops them from making shitty malware-ridden apps offered on scammy 3rd party stores? I won't move my mortgage to another bank because my bank app now requires me to install a weird-looking altstore... Or would I?
My buddy had to install an (android) app for his boiler control few years ago and the first thing it did was to demand access to AB and SMS and later sent an actual SMS to an unknown number. This boiler company doesn’t even want to screw you directly, they just slap a partner library on top of their app that does what a third party decides to.
It wasn’t F-Droid, but that’s because PlayStore already allows that behavior. AppStore doesn’t.
Traditional "linux repositories" are kind of walled gardens though. I mean, the software is vetted and controlled by the bistro's maintainer, is it not? Isn't it also true that sensible advice is to not add repo's from unknown sources?
I find it incredibly hard to believe that customer satisfaction would not go down if Apple were forced to, for example, allow third-party app stores onto iOS. It’s easy to say “customer choice is the top concern, and if customers install bad app stores or bad apps that’s on them,” but the important question to me (and probably to Apple) is whether in practice customers are more or less satisfied.
I think this is the heart of the disagreement between people who like the iPhone walled garden (I’m one of them) and people who agree with you. I think it’s where reasonable people can disagree (except of course when it comes to broad legislation protecting or prohibiting such walled gardens).
I don’t think the iPhone is comparable to a personal computer like a Mac, even though of course the hardware and software architecture is very similar (and increasingly so). I still think that smartphones are, for most people (especially people who are aware of the key differences between iOS and Android and still make an informed choice to use iOS), much more like “integrated consumer electronics devices” like gaming consoles, or car infotainment systems, or heck even a microwave (your microwave probably also contains at least one Turing-complete stored-program architecture computer).