_benton

That's not a valid analogy. There isn't a "requirement" that you only use vanilla Apple software on an iPhone. More accurate would be that the house is set up for ring cameras and the builder doesn't support implementing any other type of camera system.

If this is true and not a reporting error i'm curious where everybody is going. Perhaps people choosing cheap Macbook Air base models over slightly cheaper (and significantly worse) windows models? Is it gamers realizing they can play all their games on linux with Proton? Enterprise? A mix of everything?

The difference is that the choice to purchase devices that offer the freedom you want is available, if not the primary option. I don't wish to take that away from you. However you are advocating for the only choice for a locked down device be legislated out of existence. There is a fundamental difference here!

And one gives you the control you want over your device ie. sideloading and alternative app stores right? So why not simply purchase devices that use that operating system?

This seems like a bad faith argument. But if you're being serious, I can buy non-nike shoes in the same way you can buy non-Apple phones. If anything, the people complaining about Apple would be upset by the lawsuit because they want to buy an iPhone despite other options being available. And in that case, the alternatives are cheaper not more expensive in the case of ethically made shoes.

I think all recent iOS versions have no public jailbreak exploits.

Not really, you can chose to purchase other devices with more favourable payment agreements. It's about having that choice, versus not having the ability to purchase a device with a higher level of security.

Who are you to claim that my consumer desires are irrelevant?

The mom and pop stores in this analogy are the multitude of devices which are not produced by Apple and provide the same features, like Android phones and phones which are trivial to flash your own custom OS and software on. So no, your analogy does not support your conclusions.

Developers are not forced into using Apple's distribution and payment systems because there are a multitude of other competing devices (with a higher market share mind you) they can and do develop for.

If users and developers prefer other systems they can simply use those.

No, because that requires the development and maintenance of two different operating systems, the cost of which is then passed to the consumer (me).

There are many phones which let you flash your own OS and use with complete control. Please just purchase one of those and stop trying to interfere with my ability to purchase a phone that I want.

It does hurt when I can no longer purchase a product that I want because other corporations wish to use the legal system to make more money, yes.

That's exactly backwards. I have no desire to limit the types of phones you can purchase, and you have an enormous amount of choices in phones outside Apple that provide essentially the same functionality, and can be as open as you wish. You wish to limit my ability to access a device that I want. I want a locked down phone, and third parties wish to intervene on a transaction between me and Apple so they can illegitimately get a piece of the pie.

Except implementing the functionality to optionally open up your device to the world inherently makes it less secure. I now have no ability to purchase the phone that I want. It's actually decreasing consumer choice.

This analogy makes no sense because you are not prevented in any way from purchasing the many other devices that provide almost identical functionality. It's like complaining that Walmart hiked their prices but ignoring the fact that the mom and pop stores still exist, at a higher number compared to walmarts, and are selling the same products for cheaper. You have incredible consumer choice for phones, you can't chose to purchase a luxury phone and then complain about it.

Maybe if the iPhone was the only phone available to purchase this argument has merit. But it's not, there are no shortage of other phones that provide the same features which are "essential to (your) practical participation in society)". If anything, you are attempting to remove my ability to purchase a device I want to own. And I don't really like that.

This is exactly what it is. They're trying to force Apple to design an inferior (imo) product so they can make more money.

Are you legally prevented from controlling your device in any way you wish after purchase?

I think people are conflating ease of modification from legally being able to do so. If it's legal, then Apple retains no control over the device.

If they have to make changes in software to allow an "unlocked" device that makes it inherently less secure.

This is probably a controversial opinion but I actually use my iPhone because it's locked down with a curated app marketplace and secure payment system. I don't want alternative payment methods or app stores. So I find it distasteful that other companies are seeking to control Apple's product design through the legal system. They're essentially trying to make it impossible to purchase a product I want, which is more monopolistic than the current status quo. iPhones do not have any sort of monopoly on phones.

If you want that, you can purchase any number of Android devices.

> Huh, the __user__ paid for the product, so they own it. After the user handed over their money, Apple has nothing to say about who I do business with on that product, or what the conditions are.

But this is already the case. You own the device, you can do whatever you want with it (legally ofc). If I buy a fridge without a freezer, the fact that I can't freeze food with it doesn't mean I don't own the fridge.

Furthermore I don't appreciate other companies using the legal system to profit by forcing Apple to design their products in a specific way.

Would that work with refactoring too? Like for example if a function that once returned Maybe<Foo> was refactored to return Foo, would a consumer that received Maybe<Foo> still work?

Well, let x = 1; x = false; is a type error in TS anyways. let x: Number | Boolean = 1 is fine but also clear about its allowed types.

Cant you do something like let mut x: Result<Either<Foo, Bar>, Error> in Rust? Same thing, just more ceremony?

That's why I put it in quotation marks. Capitalism is heavily regulated in every western nation, perhaps every nation.

Zig has far too many other issues tho (lack of interfaces??) for me to seriously consider it a competitor to TS's type system.

Yep. I wish Rust supported proper union types. Typescript gets it right, I just don't want to be writing Javascript...

I really wish Rust had proper union types. So much ceremony over something that could be Foo | Bar | Error

Because Apple under Steve Jobs worked because Steve had full control. Zero chance they become successful run by committee or group ownership or whatever. And they also needed venture capital in the beginning afaik.

I don't think Apple could have existed as it did under Jobs in any other system.

I'm so fascinated by the few people online who show up to anything web component related just to flame and complain. It's always the same things too.

DSD is useful for SSRing web components, which allows them to render and work without JS. But honestly, I don't get the obsession with doing stuff without JS, it's part of the html/css/js trifecta.