Those are very different scenarios because your "protection" is the threat of consequences. You can freely buy and use knives, you can drive your own car, but you can only use your phone to do what Apple approves of? Sure, banning knives, replacing cars with public transport, and locking down all computers should be safer in theory... but murderers will still murder and scammers will still scam.
Social engineering is the weakest link even if your grandma is doing all her banking on Windows XP.
> Hell, you'll get in trouble if your gasoline is the wrong color.
You've missed my point even though it's right in front of you. You won't get in trouble for using your Apple device in non-approved ways because it doesn't let you. Would you ban cars for everyone because it's not safe for grandma to drive anymore? Probably not - so why lock down devices for everyone?
> Do we not take steps to try and reduce murder?
Not directly? Gun/knife control probably helps but people willing to risk the consequences of murder are not going to care about breaking more laws to get illegal weapons. Or just use a weapon that's easy to get.
> You won't get in trouble for using your Apple device in non-approved ways because it doesn't let you.
The government won't let me use my car in non-approved ways. They will, in fact, stop me with guns at times.
I'm not even allowed to purchase some items, let alone use as I please. I'm allowed to buy (or sell) a https://www.fairphone.com/ style device! But no one really wants them.
Not relevant. Most people don't choose their phone/platform based on how much freedom it gives you. An iPhone is a very good phone overall but the restrictions are unfortunately bundled in.
You're obviously fine with it but it is only going to get worse in the future. The whole Android developer verification thing is a step in the same direction from Google's side. Eventually macOS will be locked down or even phased out - most young people just do everything on their phone now so why not? I don't want to accept that future so I'm not supporting platforms that restrict it.
They didn't, and I don't have one, but it's looking like Android phones are going to be locked down in the future too. Everything else will slowly lose compatibility with the apps you need.
> If you give a toddler a butcher's knife to play with and they get hurt, you'll likely get in trouble for child endangerment.
Right but granny is not a child, she is kind of the opposite of a child.
You're essentially saying we should child proof the entire world, right. Appeal to the lowest common denominator and DO NOT offer back doors. But that's a plainly ridiculous notion and everyone knows it. This argument only works on smartphones right now because it's the status-quo. As soon as you extend it to literally any other domain, it immediately crumbles and falls between your fingers.
Yes, there IS a certain level of protection that is acceptable at all times. But that level is absolutely not "maximum protection, no other options sorry". Which is what Apple is trying to do. This really is "no sale of knives" type stuff. That sounds ridiculous, right? Because it is, and we let Apple get away with murder.
> The failure modes are often quite similar - cognitive/motor issues and lack of experience with the tools offered.
Okay but again we cannot form all technology to only work for people with cognitive issues and nobody else. Again, this is ridiculous, there's no other way to describe it. It's just not a reasonable viewpoint and I feel it's a bit insane I even have to argue against it.
Look, it's great if we have the option to lock these phones down for more vulnerable people. What we CANNOT do is make the entire world locked down. It's not reasonable.
> Back doors accessible by scammers are bad for the same reasons back doors accessible by governments are.
My mistake, these are front doors. Not back doors.
> Apple's more like a shop that declines to sell knives. There are other shops that will sell you one.
NO, there are not, because Apple chooses to only allow their app store. The market we are talking about here is not "all smartphones". It's "the market of software available for iPhones", in which they hold 100% control over. This should be legislated against.
> Okay but again we cannot form all technology to only work for people with cognitive issues and nobody else.
We can take their needs into consideration, just as we legally require businesses to put wheelchair ramps in.
> NO, there are not, because Apple chooses to only allow their app store. The market we are talking about here is not "all smartphones". It's "the market of software available for iPhones", in which they hold 100% control over. This should be legislated against.
Should Gucci have to sell Coach handbags? Should Ford have to sell Toyotas?
> Should Gucci have to sell Coach handbags? Should Ford have to sell Toyotas?
If Gucci was a Walmart, then yes. If Walmart claimed to be a grocery store, and exclusively served only Walmart goods, that's a problem.
There's a difference between a brand and a marketplace. Apple is a brand. The App Store is a marketplace. The marketplace should be relatively free, in the market sense.
In addition, these are general computation devices. Some people disagree, I don't care, they're obviously wrong. It's not like a washing machine. These are supposed to be for general software and computing purposes, much like your PC. But they aren't, because unlike your PC, they are nonfree.
The bigger thing that I'm kind of hinting at is: we are not trapped into some make believe structure we have to live by. You think Apple shouldn't open their app store. That's just a belief, and one I reject. We can, and should, force their hand. We do it ALLLL the time with corporations, it's very common.
Just because things have worked one way, doesn't mean they should continue to work that way. We can change things at any time, if it is for the better. If we decided we should pass legislation to force Guccie to also sell Prada, then sure. I say why the fuck not? If that's what consumers want, then we should do it. The consumer is king. I give less than zero fucks what Apple wants. If it hurts Apple's bottom line, I still don't care. In fact, I'd argue that if we're hurting Apple's bottom line then we're probably doing something right. I will always side with the consumer 100% of the time.
> The failure modes are often quite similar - cognitive/motor issues and lack of experience with the tools offered.
Children are either not allowed to have devices, or they have them but locked down with parental controls (hopefully).
Apple could easily have a separate mode for this. Maybe there's some overlap with lockdown mode where it can be bundled together. There is no reason to force it on everyone except to benefit Apple.
Society as a whole, to some extent, and the various industries involved.
Why should children be punished with a lifetime of shitty ingrained behaviors just because they were born to shitty parents who wouldn't do the right thing? I'd rather not create the Eloi and Morlocks from HG Wells.
If you give a toddler a butcher's knife to play with and they get hurt, you'll likely get in trouble for child endangerment.
Using my car requires it be registered, pass my state's safety standards, and that I possess a valid license and follow a wide variety of rules.
Maybe a certain level of protection is, at times, acceptable?