You own the hardware, but not the software. Re-read your EULAs.
The hardware is fine, you can (still) go and install Linux or maybe the open-source Darwin on it. Then you'll have the complete control, and also the complete responsibility.
The idea of iOS, and increasingly macOS, is that it's like a hosted service controlled by Apple, but on your local device. This allows for various valuable security and usability guarantees, and for an ecosystem for which commercial vendors are willing to develop software. It works exactly because much of the agency is removed from the user, and given to Apple, which has both different expertise and incentives.
I like my distro's package manager more than App Store, it gives me more freedom and a different set of choices. Most people, who are not versed well in computer internals, won't be happy to trade App Store to a package manager, and limit themselves with free software.
Freedom has a cost, and for many people the cost of a particular piece of freedom is too high.
This is free market for you. They offer something, you accept the offer if you want. Re-read the EULAs, for you have agreed with their provisions.
Would you prefer the government to set rules about what kind of access you have to have to your computer (and maybe force the evil corps give you more freedom)? That won't even be funny. Corporations at the very least are interested in keeping you as a customer. Any government, given a chance, would mandate spyware and backdoors, for your safety, but mostly for their safety. Examples abound; look at China, Turkey, Kazakhstan, etc.
Please realize that the lack of agency is the principal component of the price you pay for the polish and cleanliness in the walled garden. There is no known other way to run it.
2 vendors, Microsoft and Apple, have almost 100% of desktop OS market share, so no, that's not a particularly free market.
> Please realize that the lack of agency is the principal component of the price you pay for the polish and cleanliness in the walled garden. There is no known other way to run it.
This is completely false, because Apple has radically changed how they've operated the Mac in the past 20 years. That's my complaint. Apple keeps getting worse and worse, year after year. I was quite satisfied with the Mac years ago.
In the past, the Mac was more open. Believe it or not, there was a time when code signing didn't exist, and you could modify your system however you pleased.
Along these lines, I really loved Apple hardware at the times of Apple II, and Apple software at the times of HyperCard.
By that time, and through 1990s, Apple was very niche, much like desktop Linux today. It did not have viruses because nobody cared to seriously write them. Apple were catering for some specific professional circles, power users who were ready to pay quite a premium for the machine.
Since the iPhone revolution, Apple is about the mass consumer, with much more non-geek mindset, buying at much more affordable prices. They lock down their ecosystem both for users' security (because non-IT people have hard time understanding computer security), and to extract more money via App Store-only software installation in the future.
Againx the problem with freedom is its cost, and you have fewer chances finding pockets of it where the majority is. Fringe groups have more chances to value and protect it, like OSS movement, or early Apple / Amiga / all the way to Altair customer base.
> In the past, the Mac was more open. Believe it or not, there was a time when code signing didn't exist, and you could modify your system however you pleased.
This seems inevitable as computers become more accessible to less technical userbases. Foot-guns are fine(ish) when your user group is composed of specialists, but companies have incentive to minimize support requests.
> This seems inevitable as computers become more accessible to less technical userbases.
The only change is cost. Computers are more accessible because they're cheaper. My dad managed to figure out VisiCalc for himself back in the day, and he wasn't "technical", he was just in sales.
IMO there's an unfortunate tendency nowadays to infantilize users.
How can we say simultaneously that "computers are the future" and also accept a situation where the majority of people are just assumed to be technically incompetent and incapable of learning?
> companies have incentive to minimize support requests.
In my experience, for example supporting my mom, there's no difference in the volume of support requests. The only difference is that you can actually fix problems that occur on the Mac, whereas if someone experiences a problem on iOS, they're basically doomed.
> How can we say simultaneously that "computers are the future" and also accept a situation where the majority of people are just assumed to be technically incompetent and incapable of learning?
This succinctly captures the issue, though. Users don't want to read the manual, they want to use the appliance. They don't want to learn the idiosyncrasies of the device, they want to accomplish the task they had in mind.
As someone who always reads the manual, I agree with you on principle but the reality is, fewer people care how things work and just want to get stuff done.
I'm not sure how this is relevant? Almost every product of every kind comes with a manual or instructions, which buyers are free to read or ignore, possibly with dangerous consequences for the latter. You can stick a metal pot in a microwave. You can pop open a pill bottle and swallow. That's just a fact of life in a free society.
Going back to your minimization of support requests comment, if your mom is unable to delete a file (like when SIP is enabled) she won't make a superfluous support request as she was prevented from making the error. As computers continue to be used as appliances, we should expect similar controls over the device to be deployed to minimize the harm a user can cause. This in turn leads to loss of agency by the specialist.
Most people can understand the failure modes associated with microwaving metal and such (or if not, it can be a relatively cheap or expensive lesson). But that underscores the commoditization I was pointing at. The dangers of general computing devices can't be captured in simple aphorisms like "don't leave it on with a vessel that lacks contents" for a stove or "don't put metal inside" for a microwave. The warnings that accompany a computer would comprise encyclopedic volumes to encapsulate all the things that could go wrong, like "don't install software from someone you don't know on a computer through which you access your banking." There are so many instance like that it's unbelievable. Few other devices are so interconnected to so many aspects of our lives. The general nature simply lacks the guardrails and controls of a special-purpose appliance.
Put another way, can you imagine the reduction in request volume from your mother if she had a special device for reading the news, and another for banking, and another for shopping? This is the rationale. I don't agree with it but convenience seems to trump everything else.
Where you can choose between Windows's EULA and MacOS's EULA and declining is not an option.
Hardly a free market and "consent" is hardly valid if "no" is not an option.
Is there a huge barrier to entry? Some very expensive regulation to comply, like in pharma? Some colossal infrastructure cost, like with telecom?
I would say that the duopoly is due to the exclusive agreements with OEMs first and foremost (Windows, Android) and lock-up by the manufacturer (iOS). If I were to consider an anti-trust action, I'd concentrate on these.
The hardware is fine, you can (still) go and install Linux or maybe the open-source Darwin on it. Then you'll have the complete control, and also the complete responsibility.
The idea of iOS, and increasingly macOS, is that it's like a hosted service controlled by Apple, but on your local device. This allows for various valuable security and usability guarantees, and for an ecosystem for which commercial vendors are willing to develop software. It works exactly because much of the agency is removed from the user, and given to Apple, which has both different expertise and incentives.
I like my distro's package manager more than App Store, it gives me more freedom and a different set of choices. Most people, who are not versed well in computer internals, won't be happy to trade App Store to a package manager, and limit themselves with free software.
Freedom has a cost, and for many people the cost of a particular piece of freedom is too high.