Is it possible to allow sideloading and keep users safe?

You can install your own OS on iPhone hardware, what you’re demanding is that Apple allow you to run your own software on their OS. It’s like saying that you don’t own your microwave or lawnmower unless they provide you with an API to build apps on it. Are you just renting your Xbox because you can’t run PlayStation games on it?

exactly right.

Apple wants to sell appliances. The parent commenter wants to buy a computer.

That's the fundamental disagreement.

Well you can't run your own OS on iPhone hardware without jailbreaking but that's beside the point. You don't own your Xbox not because you can't run Playstation games on it but because the manufacturer put a digital lock on it they control which denies you the ability to run software they don't approve of on it.

I think we can do better than "well you own it because you're technically allowed to attempt to break the lock." We can demand that users be given ability to remove the lock.

> You can install your own OS on iPhone hardware

No you can’t? Things like Project Sandcastle barely function on a single model. It can’t even access the network

I’m still not seeing the difference between an iPhone and Xbox. They’re both controlling what software you can run on their systems, why are people complaining about one but not the other?

Because iPhones are the primary computer for hundreds of millions of people, and Xboxes are toys that some people have in their living rooms. It's not hard to believe that people have a right to control their computers and consider the situations with both devices bad, but to be far far more concerned about the iPhone.

This is a ridiculous argument.

I have a purely mechanical lawn mower. I can replace any part of the engine, frame, switches, I can add a second engine if I wanted to.

An Iphone doesn't let you do any of this. "Their OS", no dude, I bought it, it's in my hand.

> what you’re demanding is that Apple allow you to run your own software on their OS

Yes. I'm not the original commenter, but this is what I expect.

From my POV, the OS exists to virtualise the hardware it runs on. I don't want the OS manufacturer to decide if I'm allowed to have a web browser or play games.

Naive in hindsight, but until game consoles and smartphones came along, it didn't occur to me that an OS would forbid me from installing something.

You conveniently ignored the Xbox example, why don’t you address that?

> You can install your own OS on iPhone hardware

You actually can’t.

I own a blender made by KitchenAid. I am allowed to blend strawberries that have not been approved by KitchenAid. I can make an Onion Banana Durian smoothie if I want. Calling Apple product appliances is a slur to appliance makers

I never did.

Again, these companies who want to "sell" something, but still retain owner-level control at a distance should be classified as a rental.

And a rental means the company still owns this property, and therefore should pay taxes on all of their property.

And that would absolutely mean that game consoles SHOULD not be sold as such. Or better yet, if these companies do make changes against the property owner's decisions, should be prosecuted using the CFAA against the company.

Case in point: Nintendo Switch 2 is remotely destroying consoles that play a game that was ripped by someone else. If it were me, Nintendo of America's C levels would be charged with CFAA and have a nice perp-walk.

But that's the point in the USA. Companies are allowed to use Trojans and hack tools against hardware others own, but if we tried that, I'd be making this message in a jail cell.

In what universe can you install your own OS on iPhone hardware?

I would be a bit more careful how I would say compliance.

For example, a coffee maker does have software in there. But it does a job and does it well. There's no cloud garbage, no remote attestation, or much of anything.

To that end, I look at "who can control the device?" If the answer, as someone who paid money for it, and the answer is "the company", then I'm logically not the owner.

Alongside a fraudulent sale, there is also tax fraud by misclassifying these rentals as sales.

I've also seen nobody discussing the tax fraud angle either. We the public are getting cheated as well, from both directions. Its high time we start suing and pressing charges, and making us whole.

Dunno, wasn't paying enough attention.

But regardless, if a company can remotely remove my ability to use a product solely at their discretion, we need a better way to talk about than "buying and selling"

I don’t where you’ve been the last couple of decades, but plenty of people complain about software restrictions on gaming consoles. There was a whole era when console games were even region-locked, and that fucking sucked…

We use the term "jailbreaking" in reference to hardware we think we own.

So... Who's the jailer?

As an owner, I want THEIR rights.

What taxes ? In most countries you only pay property taxes on real estate, not on random items.

What taxes exactly are you referring to?

I can see movies that weren’t blessed by Apple, and I can send email with content that wasn’t approved by apple.

Most of these analogies don’t make things much clearer.

The closest one is: the phone is supposedly my employee - I pay its salary (to Apple), but it is asking Apple to approve everything I ask it to do, and they are the only arbiter.

(This analogy also sucks. You have to actually deal with subject matter at hand and not look for shortcuts)

Because the number of people on HN who think they will become a billionaire if Apple let everyone install their app is much greater than the people who think the same about Xbox.

Microsoft does not regularly make the front page of HN because they don’t allow side loading. Apple does.

It’s a disingenuous argument.

Presumably they mean something treating it more like renting a car.

E.g. if a game console manufacturer wants to retain owner-level control of their console, they can rent it to you for $X per month, which would include a Y% sales/VAT/GST/whatever tax.

And correspondingly if the device is sold to you, they should not be able to do things like disallow you from running custom software, remotely brick the device with a soft fuse, etc. and otherwise stop you from using it freely.

I think there is a middle ground (e.g. you can buy the console and either have it in "secure" mode as it ships from the factory, or choose to "root" the device and gain the ability to run custom code - perhaps this would invalidate the manufacturer's attestation keys from the secure enclave or burn a soft fuse as part of the process, so it no longer passes checks for DRM and so on). However that may not be economically viable as I understand the consoles are often loss leaders on the hardware and the profit is made on game sales and licensing.

The phone is general purpose. Its impact on daily life and near necessity and our expectation from the last 15 years of haven't them make it different.

Thanks. I agree.

My question was referring specifically to the “not paying taxes”. TTBOMK, in all western jurisdiction, sales/vat/etc/income taxes on sales are equal to or higher than those owed on rental income - and op kept repeating (in multiple responses) that misclassifying a rental as a sale is a tax fraud for the seller/original-owner. That makes no sense to me.

> For example, a coffee maker does have software in there. But it does a job and does it well. There's no cloud garbage, no remote attestation, or much of anything.

Man, have you seen coffee makers lately?

just search for "smart <appliance-name>" and you get all cloud garbage and more. Dishwashers, vacuum cleaners, televisions, microwaves, ... what a cesspit