Hacker News Reader

Comment by MikeUt | Hacker News Reader

You could get the same security if you voluntarily limited yourself to the app store, or never unlocked your iPhone.

> apple doesn’t have an obligation to make it easy

Nor do countries have an obligation to allow Apple access to their markets if Apple refuses to respect user freedom, should that be legally required.

View on HN

> Nor do countries have an obligation to allow Apple access to their markets if Apple refuses to respect user freedom, should that be legally required.

Well, yes. Go look at China[0] and see just how far apple is willing to bend over backwards to stay in a market (although for China they pretty much had to unless they wanted to lose access to their entire existing supply chain). My point is that I should be able to purchase a device completely locked down and Apple should be allowed to make that device. People who don't like that can purchase something else.

0: https://www.nytimes.com/2021/05/17/technology/apple-china-ce...

But you tacked on that your threat model is less than Android because Apple babysits your device. An alternative app store existing does not have the ability to compromise your device unless you use it. Android has many app stores and 95% of users use the platform's default one. Therefore it is the same level of security as your Apple product with more freedom should the user take advantage of it. Walled gardens are not secure.

If it wasn't for network and ecosystem effects, I'd agree with you. But much like I can't simply not visit websites with Facebook's or Google's trackers, without cutting myself off from a huge chunk of the modern world, allowing locked-down devices to take up a larger and larger chunk of consumer computers has effects beyond the initial purchase.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com