Comment by wkat4242
1 month ago
> I can acknowledge my own interests here (having control over how exactly the device I own runs), but I can also see the interests of phone manufacturers — protecting revenue streams, managing liability and regulatory risks, optimizing hardware–software integration, and so on. I don't see how my own interests here outweigh collective interests here.
However the interests you mention aren't collective at all but very singularly the ones of the manufacturer only
Its only the manufacturers interests because they dont want people to brick their phone on accident. Really theyre only a secondary party of interest, the real interested party is grandma/anyone who can fall victim to malware. Apples decision to ban sideloading is a huge part of how they became the most popular phone maker in the us
The real interest is their protection of their sweet 30% revenue stream. There are many ways to protect security, leaving all your keys in the hands of one party is not the only one.
And there should also be the right to be able to opt out of the manufacturers' protections of course.
Youre not wrong about the real interest but security is another very real one.
> There are many ways to protect security, leaving all your keys in the hands of one party is not the only one.
When youre dealing with idiots its a bit harder than you might expect. Tons of idiots own phones and if apple allowed them to be the victim of security vulnerabilities they get terrible pr.
1 reply →
> Apples decision to ban sideloading is a huge part of how they became the most popular phone maker in the us
I'm skeptical. A robust permission model limiting the damage an ill-behaved app was surely part of it, as was the existence of a curated app store. The relative rarity of people directly installing apps on Android suggests Apple didn't really need to force the use of that curated store.
> because they dont want people to brick their phone on accident
Or worse, blow them up.