To me it's a consumer rights issue. Apple shouldn't have any say what I can and can't install on my device. It would be like if Tesla made you sign an EULA for your car that prevented you from putting on your own tires and instead you were required to use Tesla ones. In the car market "for your safety" is an even stronger argument and yet everyone can see straight through that argument. Freedom has been under assault in computing now for the last 20 years and for some reason there's a loud contingent of nerds cheering it on. It really is baffling to me. The absolute best and exciting time for me for iOS was when people jailbroke their phones and used Cydia. Now it's just a bland corporate sell out of an operating system.

> The whole "does twitter owe someone a platform" conversation is fascinating.

It seems to reduce to bickering about the perception of a fuzzy line. My back yard is not a public space. A government owned city park is a public space. What if that park was owned by a private corporation but left open to the public? What if all the parks in the city were owned by the same private corporation? Clearly there's more to "public vs private" than just ownership but where exactly should we draw the line?

I find it tiring as opposed to fascinating. It distracts from the real issue. Why such reliance on centralized walled garden communication infrastructure? At the core, how is Twitter functionally different from sending emails to a public listserv in the 90s? How is following an account different from polling an RSS feed?

Sometimes it really seems like we're moving backwards, all the while loudly arguing over the precise direction to cede ground in. Has anyone perhaps considered going forward instead?

If the majority of the populace uses these devices as the primary means of communication with the internet and everything it essentially becomes a public platform.

> Except you can install arbitrary apps on iOS in much the same way you can install them on Linux: get the source code and compile yourself

Sort of. You can do this, but only for three apps at a time. And you have to be tethered to a PC that does the compiling. And you have to validate your credentials with Apple online for them to let you sign the app (which is required for running it on your phone). And the app will refuse to open after seven days have passed.

The three app limit is lifted and seven day killswitch changed to a 365 day one if you pay Apple $100 annually. Even then the other restrictions remain, so you can't, for instance, have your apps auto-update.

Compare to Android, where you can download an f-droid.apk, hit a switch or two in your settings, and get untethered app installs with semi-automatic updates. Unfortunately Android restricts fully automatic updates to preinstalled stores.

> Except you can install arbitrary apps on iOS

If you have a Mac, and you renew the license every 7 days.. I would hardly put it in the “can install” category.

> but a while ago that was Apple 0-days being cheaper than Android ones, i.e. implying they were more common.

It's certainly true of the white-hat market:

https://www.bleepingcomputer.com/news/security/zerodium-make...