| That's the way you see it, how about the way I see it? iOS solution: everything goes through Apple, I generally trust them and know that they try to look out for me. Android solution: every app goes through someone else's server, every app needs individual vetting because I have no idea what they're doing or how hard they're trying with their privacy. Where is the trying at all. That's the way you see it, how about the way I see it? iOS solution: everything goes through Apple, I generally trust them and know that they try to look out for me. Android solution: every app goes through someone else's server, every app needs individual vetting because I have no idea what they're doing or how hard they're trying with their privacy. Or if they're trying at all. I like the iOS solution. You have it framed for my developer point of you, and I can understand that. But from your point of you, your solution has a lot of potential issues around privacy alone. |
Apple looks out for their bottom line. If your interest happens to cross that path, bummer.
Don't just assume a commercial interest 'looks out for you' because they don't. If your needs, or at least your perceived needs (due to effective marketing) fit with a company's strategy you might get the idea that said company does it all for you and your fellow users. This does not imply any causality, the company just does what it thinks is best for its bottom line. As long as a company serves the needs of its users they are in a position to do well. Vendor lock-in serves companies in that they have more freedom to choose their own path without bothering all that much about whether that path coincides with their users' needs as those users face a steep cost if they choose to change vendor. As long as the company keeps the extra costs - in money, limited features or usability - lower than what it would cost a user to switch vendor they stand to gain from this strategy.