This is simply by default, from both a free software and security perspective. I've made my security point already.
What is your argument in favor of Apple, specifically?
From a free software perspective, no non-free program is ever better than a free alternative, even if that alternative is poor, because it robs you of your freedoms.
The part that I disagree with is the 'even if the alternative is poor'.
I understand that tolerating non-free software could be seen as moving us further away from a world where free software is the norm, but I also disagree with this.
You are arguing against Apple when the problem you are actually facing is a failure of the free software ecosystem to produce a viable alternative.
From an ideological perspective I would prefer free software too. My argument 'in favor of Apple' isn't really in support of Apple. It is against trying to tear down the current best option in favor of an alternative that doesn't exist.
There is a real fight going on right now, and favoring the government over Apple in this because you prefer free software seems like an extemely counterproductive move.
A free alternative can just as easily be outlawed as the non-free ones can. What matters is the legal and social precedents.
We shouldn't agree with Apple's position on many things.
But it is _essential_ that this precedent---government-mandated backdoors---not be allowed. The stage on which we fight the crypto wars is shared by what would be our enemies in many other respects. So yes, we should choose our own shoes: we can stand with Apple in resisting this order while at the same time standing _against_ them for all of their other evils. This issue does not somehow legitimize all of their other evils.
However I still disagree with you on the point of standing against Apple for their 'evils'.
Apple is simply exercising their freedom. I agree that there may be better ways of doing things, but the failure of free software to produce these alternatives is nothing to do with Apple.
If anything, I'd say that standing 'against' Apple, works against the cause of producing a free alternative because it focuses people's attention on misplaced anger towards Apple, rather than on the constructive effort needed to build what is required.
I find it hard to see how someone reconciles a belief in freedom with an agenda that involves standing against Apple.
> However I still disagree with you on the point of standing against Apple for their 'evils'.
We'll have to agree to disagree here---I don't want it to seem like I'm showing disrespect toward your opinions.
> I find it hard to see how someone reconciles a belief in freedom with an agenda that involves standing against Apple.
Apple is exercising a _different_ kind of freedom---a broader set of freedoms, to which they are certainly entitled. Free software represents a small subset of those freedoms---the four freedoms which are designed to protect the users, not the developers.
It's important to educate others on both the free software community's philosophy and on the problems with Apple so that they can have that comparison, and so that they can avoid Apple's products if they decide that those issues matter to them. Apple has an advantage in the number of users---one we'll never have---so we have no choice but to reach out.
Since you've explained this so clearly, I guess I would pinpoint my disagreement at the assumption that the free software movement will never have the number of users that Apple will, and the idea that you have no choice.
Whilst the argument about types of freedom and the goal of free software seems sound, both of these other points seem to be relatively arbitrary decisions that have nothing to do with Apple, and everything to do with a sense of powerlessness and failure in free software.
I think it's sad because I don't see why either statement should be true, and I think believing them does far more to undermine the goal than to help it.
What is your argument in favor of Apple, specifically?
From a free software perspective, no non-free program is ever better than a free alternative, even if that alternative is poor, because it robs you of your freedoms.